The truth always comes out.



Quote:

James Ashby, who worked as a media adviser to the Speaker of the Federal Parliament, Peter Slipper, worked to undermine his boss by giving information to a tabloid journalist and to his political rivals, a court has heard. David Chin, the barrister for Mr Slipper, told the Federal Court today that Mr Ashby's lawsuit for sexual harassment has been designed to cause "political and reputational damage" to the Speaker and for the "political advantage of his political opponents in the Liberal-National party", including former Howard cabinet minister Mal Brough. Julian Burnside, QC, for the Commonwealth, told Justice Steven Rares that mobile phone records show Mr Ashby and another adviser, Karen Doane, "were working together to undermine Mr Slipper when they were still working for him". Mr Burnside alleged the two advisers "provided sensitive material" to News Ltd journalist Steve Lewis - who was present in the court's public gallery today - and provided "politically sensitive information" to Mr Brough. He said there were "interesting texts" sent between Mr Ashby, Ms Doane, Mr Lewis and Mr Brough. The court heard the Commonwealth was considering the ongoing employment of Mr Ashby and Ms Doane in the light of the phone records. Steve Lewis ... it has been alleged two advisors "provided sensitive material" to him. Photo: Lyn Mills Justice Rares granted leave to issue subpoenas to Mr Lewis, Mr Brough, Ms Doane and Mr Ashby's media spokesman Anthony McClellan. A notice to produce will be issued to Mr Ashby. Mr Burnside said Ms Doane and Mr Ashby had been on paid leave since the matter "blew up" - and that it was caused by their own actions. He said the two staffers used material "they should never have leaked to the press and to former members of Parliament". He said the Commonwealth, as their employer, wanted mobile phone records to "review" their continued employment as a matter of urgency. He said some text messages referred to paragraphs in the affidavits that had been filed in the matter. "It's a matter of concern that since then they have been on paid leave and this is a matter that needs to be put to rest quickly," he said. Meanwhile, Justice Rares ordered Mr Ashby's lawyers to provide the Commonwealth and Mr Slipper's lawyers with an unredacted version of his April 13 affidavit. Michael Lee, SC, for Mr Ashby, had argued the redacted parts were covered by legal professional privilege. But Justice Rares rejected this, saying privilege had been waived. The hearing continues. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/text-trail-reveals-link-between-ashby-journo-and--slippers-rivals-court-20120615-20e55.html#ixzz1xpX7tcli

You think they would have learned after Gretch.
Oh hang on that was Malcolm's poor judgement according to fanboys, so this must be Abbott's poor judgement.
He can see the prize moving further & further out of reach.

Where are all the usual suspects now???? come out from under your rocks, your heroes Liberal lies are now being exposed.

lol the poor Libs, can't take a trick.

How does this so called collusion - lessen the charges of sexual harassment?

If there were collusion and if there was sexual harassment then does this mean it cancel each other out and Slipper is not guilty?

Maqqa wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:

How does this so called collusion - lessen the charges of sexual harassment? If there were collusion and if there was sexual harassment then does this mean it cancel each other out and Slipper is not guilty?

Its not harassment if its entrapment

Maqqa wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:

How does this so called collusion - lessen the charges of sexual harassment? If there were collusion and if there was sexual harassment then does this mean it cancel each other out and Slipper is not guilty?

Did Rudd ask treasury for preferential treatment for a car dealer?

Maqqa wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:

How does this so called collusion - lessen the charges of sexual harassment? If there were collusion and if there was sexual harassment then does this mean it cancel each other out and Slipper is not guilty?

It kills Ashby's credibility - how can we believe him when the whole thing seems contrived for political gain?

So now that it's been proven he was placed in Slipper's office by the LNP in order to set him up for Sexual Harrassment charges who does this look bad for?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8-) 8-) 8-) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Who was saying the "temporary" part of Temporary Tony's name was ridiculous?  :D :D :D :D

[img]http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2012/06/15/ic4yik2clo.jpg[/img]

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 3:35pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:27pm: How does this so called collusion - lessen the charges of sexual harassment? If there were collusion and if there was sexual harassment then does this mean it cancel each other out and Slipper is not guilty? Its not harassment if its entrapment

not that I care one iotia about this case, but just for the record, there is no law against entrapment in Austtralie unliek in the USA.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:35pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:27pm: How does this so called collusion - lessen the charges of sexual harassment? If there were collusion and if there was sexual harassment then does this mean it cancel each other out and Slipper is not guilty? Its not harassment if its entrapment not that I care one iotia about this case, but just for the record, there is no law against entrapment in Austtralie unliek in the USA.

The law doesn't come into it really.

Liberal party members encouraged openly gay public servant to lead on the known gay speaker to facilitate the fall of the government.

What do you think the public perception would be?
Pretty sure Liberal 2pp support would crash to Alp numbers
Who knows this might be the catalyst for a Green lead lower house ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

not that I care one iotia about this case, but just for the record, there is no law against entrapment in Austtralie unliek in the USA.

Don't you? Lost interest? Because there was a time when you certainly did care:


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.

You seemed to care here as well:


longweekend58 wrote on May 19^th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

adelcrow wrote on May 19th, 2012 at 4:21pm: Put it this way...if Slipper gets off and all the details of how the Libs set this whole thing up hits the media Abbott can kiss his grab for power goodbye and Pyne will forever be known as "Homo bait" So Slippers, long, long, long history of this kind of thing makes you certain the latest occurence was a beat-up? no wonder you support greens/labor. fantays appeals to you.

Definitely sounds to me like you cared here:


longweekend58 wrote on May 19^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

adelcrow wrote on May 19th, 2012 at 5:23pm: Slippers dodgy deals were small change compared to this lot http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/13727229/taxpayers-funding-7m-travel-bill/ the difference is that one is legal, whereas Slipper was not.

Need I go on longliar??  :D :D :D :D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 3:35pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:27pm: How does this so called collusion - lessen the charges of sexual harassment? If there were collusion and if there was sexual harassment then does this mean it cancel each other out and Slipper is not guilty? Its not harassment if its entrapment

So you've got proof of entrapment?

Did the sexual harrassment happened AFTER Ashby talked to Brough?

Or did the sexual harassment happened, Ashby needed someone to talked to and spoke to Brough about it.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:35pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:27pm: How does this so called collusion - lessen the charges of sexual harassment? If there were collusion and if there was sexual harassment then does this mean it cancel each other out and Slipper is not guilty? Its not harassment if its entrapment So you've got proof of entrapment? Did the sexual harrassment happened AFTER Ashby talked to Brough? Or did the sexual harassment happened, Ashby needed someone to talked to and spoke to Brough about it.

If is the important word in both our posts.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's not sexual harassment if James Ashby is found to be a cutie pie.

Also, if Mr Slipper is a hunk, James Ashby would not have to try very hard to get turned on. At the very least, he could easily lay there and get a hand job - this would save him going to the toilet for a wank. If he closed his eyes, he could imagine it was Mr Abbott in his bicycle pants.

I know Matty has a number of thoughts on this issue, but he's not making any statements at this time as the matter is before the courts.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 4:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:35pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:27pm: How does this so called collusion - lessen the charges of sexual harassment? If there were collusion and if there was sexual harassment then does this mean it cancel each other out and Slipper is not guilty? Its not harassment if its entrapment So you've got proof of entrapment? Did the sexual harrassment happened AFTER Ashby talked to Brough? Or did the sexual harassment happened, Ashby needed someone to talked to and spoke to Brough about it. If is the important word in both our posts.

therefore it's for the police to determine

Karnal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 5:08pm:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's not sexual harassment if James Ashby is found to be a cutie pie. Also, if Mr Slipper is a hunk, James Ashby would not have to try very hard to get turned on. At the very least, he could easily lay there and get a hand job - this would save him going to the toilet for a wank. If he closed his eyes, he could imagine it was Mr Abbott in his bicycle pants. I know Matty has a number of thoughts on this issue, but he's not making any statements at this time as the matter is before the courts.

I wonder if matty will be subpenaed to give evidence. I hope he doesn't get angeleyes mixed up in this, it could backfire on her prospects of getting that all important job.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

therefore it's for the police to determine

You must be joking! Abbott has laid the ground rules on this. I think we shall simply assume Abbott and Co. are guilty as hell and proceed from there.

What say you?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 5:08pm: I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's not sexual harassment if James Ashby is found to be a cutie pie. Also, if Mr Slipper is a hunk, James Ashby would not have to try very hard to get turned on. At the very least, he could easily lay there and get a hand job - this would save him going to the toilet for a wank. If he closed his eyes, he could imagine it was Mr Abbott in his bicycle pants. I know Matty has a number of thoughts on this issue, but he's not making any statements at this time as the matter is before the courts. I wonder if matty will be subpenaed to give evidence. I hope he doesn't get angeleyes mixed up in this, it could backfire on her prospects of getting that all important job.

Matty thinks that Slipper is a low-level sleaze, grub and pervert, and is desperately trying to get the case thrown out of court, because he has no defense. Even if there was a kind of set-up, which Matty doubts, it doesn't excuse, or even account for, the sexual texts sent from Slipper's phone to Mr Ashby's phone. Don't forget, Slipper is guilty until proven otherwise.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 4:52pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 4:50pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:35pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:27pm: How does this so called collusion - lessen the charges of sexual harassment? If there were collusion and if there was sexual harassment then does this mean it cancel each other out and Slipper is not guilty? Its not harassment if its entrapment So you've got proof of entrapment? Did the sexual harrassment happened AFTER Ashby talked to Brough? Or did the sexual harassment happened, Ashby needed someone to talked to and spoke to Brough about it. If is the important word in both our posts. therefore it's for the police to determine

WEll well well, suddenly the judge, jury and executioner himself Mr Mac Donald cheap sh1t. Sorry Maqqa the aussie, has suddenly found the justice system. Is that because suddenly the weight of evidence is looking sad? OH dear. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

matty wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 7:51pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 5:18pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 5:08pm: I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's not sexual harassment if James Ashby is found to be a cutie pie. Also, if Mr Slipper is a hunk, James Ashby would not have to try very hard to get turned on. At the very least, he could easily lay there and get a hand job - this would save him going to the toilet for a wank. If he closed his eyes, he could imagine it was Mr Abbott in his bicycle pants. I know Matty has a number of thoughts on this issue, but he's not making any statements at this time as the matter is before the courts. I wonder if matty will be subpenaed to give evidence. I hope he doesn't get angeleyes mixed up in this, it could backfire on her prospects of getting that all important job. Matty thinks that Slipper is a low-level sleaze, grub and pervert, and is desperately trying to get the case thrown out of court, because he has no defense. Even if there was a kind of set-up, which Matty doubts, it doesn't excuse, or even account for, the sexual texts sent from Slipper's phone to Mr Ashby's phone. Don't forget, Slipper is guilty until proven otherwise.

That's not what Matty said to me. He said he thought Mr Slipper's a hunk and what was James Ashby complaining about?

He also asked how two red-blooded, consenting males could let this happen to them. How could it possibly be sexual harassment? James Ashby and Mr Slipper were clearly horny. Why didn't they just sort it out between themselves?

Matty said heaps of guys had cracked onto him when he was a secretary in the city. He said if they bought him cocktails after work, anything was up for negotiation.

Slipper is guilty until proven innocent, and you can thank JuLIAR for that.

Everyone's guilty, Matty. We've all sinned before God. There's nothing wrong with slipping your knickers off for a quick one in the gents if the guy makes $180,000 and drives a nice car.

Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.

Karnal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 9:30pm:

matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:51pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 5:18pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 5:08pm: I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's not sexual harassment if James Ashby is found to be a cutie pie. Also, if Mr Slipper is a hunk, James Ashby would not have to try very hard to get turned on. At the very least, he could easily lay there and get a hand job - this would save him going to the toilet for a wank. If he closed his eyes, he could imagine it was Mr Abbott in his bicycle pants. I know Matty has a number of thoughts on this issue, but he's not making any statements at this time as the matter is before the courts. I wonder if matty will be subpenaed to give evidence. I hope he doesn't get angeleyes mixed up in this, it could backfire on her prospects of getting that all important job. Matty thinks that Slipper is a low-level sleaze, grub and pervert, and is desperately trying to get the case thrown out of court, because he has no defense. Even if there was a kind of set-up, which Matty doubts, it doesn't excuse, or even account for, the sexual texts sent from Slipper's phone to Mr Ashby's phone. Don't forget, Slipper is guilty until proven otherwise. That's not what Matty said to me. He said he thought Mr Slipper's a hunk and what was James Ashby complaining about? He also asked how two red-blooded, consenting males could let this happen to them. How could it possibly be sexual harassment? James Ashby and Mr Slipper were clearly horny. Why didn't they just sort it out between themselves? Matty said heaps of guys had cracked onto him when he was a secretary in the city. He said if they bought him cocktails after work, anything was up for negotiation.

Matty isn't into 60 year-old men.

Wow skip, you have the proverbial explosion in the middle of a crowd, that no-one but yourself witnessed.

No revelations in this apart from an angle.

Gist wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 5:50pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 5:18pm: therefore it's for the police to determine You must be joking! Abbott has laid the ground rules on this. I think we shall simply assume Abbott and Co. are guilty as hell and proceed from there. What say you?

At the very least seeing as the Leader of Opposition business has been implicated in the lead up to the harassment claims, you would think Mr Pyne would abstain from voting or if he refuses to do so Mr Abbott would not accept that vote and run out of the chamber when Chris entered. ;D

matty wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 9:31pm:

Slipper is guilty until proven innocent, and you can thank JuLIAR for that.

How dose your demented mind come up with that dopey the clown? The only one that has the hang man mentality is Abbott. You are a real choice cut. >:( >:(

nairbe wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 10:16pm:

matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:31pm: Slipper is guilty until proven innocent, and you can thank JuLIAR for that. How dose your demented mind come up with that dopey the clown? The only one that has the hang man mentality is Abbott. You are a real choice cut. >:( >:(

Gillard/labor fair work Australia law says, guilty until proven innocent.

The labor party say 'get the hell out of our party until you prove yourself innocent and even then we dont want you back'

nairbe wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 10:16pm:

matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:31pm: Slipper is guilty until proven innocent, and you can thank JuLIAR for that. How dose your demented mind come up with that dopey the clown? The only one that has the hang man mentality is Abbott. You are a real choice cut. >:( >:(

Gillard reversed the onus of proof. Have you seen section 361 of the Fairwork Act?

matty wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 10:20pm:

nairbe wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 10:16pm: matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:31pm: Slipper is guilty until proven innocent, and you can thank JuLIAR for that. How dose your demented mind come up with that dopey the clown? The only one that has the hang man mentality is Abbott. You are a real choice cut. >:( >:( Gillard reversed the onus of proof. Have you seen section 361 of the Fairwork Act?

OH dear! :( :( :(
It would seem that there is a very deep misunderstanding between legislative controles and legal proceedings. I deal regularly with a particular Act that has similar such controls. In fact in the Act i use in NSW i have the power to order you to answer questions whether you like it or not. This, if you understood the situation, is not a brief of evidence in a court nor unconditional in it's powers.

matty wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 9:37pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:30pm: matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:51pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 5:18pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 5:08pm: I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's not sexual harassment if James Ashby is found to be a cutie pie. Also, if Mr Slipper is a hunk, James Ashby would not have to try very hard to get turned on. At the very least, he could easily lay there and get a hand job - this would save him going to the toilet for a wank. If he closed his eyes, he could imagine it was Mr Abbott in his bicycle pants. I know Matty has a number of thoughts on this issue, but he's not making any statements at this time as the matter is before the courts. I wonder if matty will be subpenaed to give evidence. I hope he doesn't get angeleyes mixed up in this, it could backfire on her prospects of getting that all important job. Matty thinks that Slipper is a low-level sleaze, grub and pervert, and is desperately trying to get the case thrown out of court, because he has no defense. Even if there was a kind of set-up, which Matty doubts, it doesn't excuse, or even account for, the sexual texts sent from Slipper's phone to Mr Ashby's phone. Don't forget, Slipper is guilty until proven otherwise. That's not what Matty said to me. He said he thought Mr Slipper's a hunk and what was James Ashby complaining about? He also asked how two red-blooded, consenting males could let this happen to them. How could it possibly be sexual harassment? James Ashby and Mr Slipper were clearly horny. Why didn't they just sort it out between themselves? Matty said heaps of guys had cracked onto him when he was a secretary in the city. He said if they bought him cocktails after work, anything was up for negotiation. Matty isn't into 60 year-old men.

Why not? If they're high-earning specialists, Matty would do whatever it takes. That's just simple common sense.

It's also why Matty doesn't blame James Ashby for working his way up the Liberal ranks. James Ashby will get a staffer's job in Mr Pyne's next ministerial office, and then, who knows?

Matty didn't come down in the last shower.

He just accessorized in a clear raincoat and hat and a pair of heeled galoshes from Shooz, Wynyard concourse.

nairbe wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 10:31pm:

matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 10:20pm: nairbe wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 10:16pm: matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:31pm: Slipper is guilty until proven innocent, and you can thank JuLIAR for that. How dose your demented mind come up with that dopey the clown? The only one that has the hang man mentality is Abbott. You are a real choice cut. >:( >:( Gillard reversed the onus of proof. Have you seen section 361 of the Fairwork Act? OH dear! :( :( :( It would seem that there is a very deep misunderstanding between legislative controles and legal proceedings. I deal regularly with a particular Act that has similar such controls. In fact in the Act i use in NSW i have the power to order you to answer questions whether you like it or not. This, if you understood the situation, is not a brief of evidence in a court nor unconditional in it's powers.

How does that change the fact that fair work australia, the baby of labor, says in its law, you are guilty until proven innocent. How does it change the fact that labor said 'get out of our party until you prove yourself innocent' and we all know they are not going to endorse him anymore.

How indeed. Matty isn't jealous of James Ashby, let's make that perfectly clear.

Matty thinks he did a good job on Mr Slipper and did his bit for the party, that's all.

If he gets a staffer's job in Mr Pyne's ministerial office for that, good luck to him. It's money for jam, really.

It doesn't prove he's got what it takes, that's for sure. He's still a lightweight Young Liberal wet. Nothing can change that, no matter how many massages he gives or how many dicks he wanks.

Matty's not some slut who will sell himself off to the highest bidder. Matty wants to save himself for Mr Right. Matty believes in governing in the interest of all Australians. If that means waiting in the sauna for Alan to finish, so be it.

http://www.waginargus.com.au/news/national/national/general/slipper-labor-hits-back/2592668.aspx


Quote:

THE federal government has accused former aides of Peter Slipper, a News Ltd journalist, the former Howard government minister Mal Brough and other senior Queensland Coalition identities of formulating a sexual harassment claim with the aim of destroying the Speaker. Following a Federal Court hearing yesterday about sexual harassment allegations against Mr Slipper by his former aide James Ashby, the Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, said the action was a politically motivated abuse of process. ''The Commonwealth strongly believes that this process has been one which is really for an ulterior purpose, not for purposes of an ordinary workplace complaint,'' she said. ''A number of other participants other than the applicant [Mr Ashby] were party to formulating this complaint with the clear intent of publicising it before it was filed, with the clear intention of harming Mr Slipper and advantaging his political opponents.'' The Commonwealth will test its abuse-of-process application claim on July 23. Ms Roxon said Commonwealth lawyers had obtained ''a vast amount of material'', including text messages and phone records, which are contained in an affidavit filed with the court. ''It will be clearly shown … that there were in fact clear intentions to harm Mr Slipper and to bring his reputation into disrepute and to assist his political opponents and that was the purpose for the bringing of this claim,'' she said. Mr Ashby's lawyer, Michael Lee, SC, argued yesterday his client had not launched legal action for any financial or political purpose, but to seek relief from the court following the alleged sexual harassment and to ensure other staff members were not subjected to similar conduct. Mr Lee said claims that Mr Ashby had ulterior motives would be contested on July 23. Mr Slipper defected from the Liberal National Party last year to become Speaker and buttress Labor's slender majority in the House of Representatives.

thats just page 1. go to the link for the rest.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 6:25am:

http://www.waginargus.com.au/news/national/national/general/slipper-labor-hits-back/2592668.aspx Quote: THE federal government has accused former aides of Peter Slipper, a News Ltd journalist, the former Howard government minister Mal Brough and other senior Queensland Coalition identities of formulating a sexual harassment claim with the aim of destroying the Speaker. thats just page 1. go to the link for the rest. SOB

Interesting that they used the word "formulating" rather than "fabricating"

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 7:54am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:25am: http://www.waginargus.com.au/news/national/national/general/slipper-labor-hits-back/2592668.aspx Quote: THE federal government has accused former aides of Peter Slipper, a News Ltd journalist, the former Howard government minister Mal Brough and other senior Queensland Coalition identities of formulating a sexual harassment claim with the aim of destroying the Speaker. thats just page 1. go to the link for the rest. SOB Interesting that they used the word "formulating" rather than "fabricating"

Heh yeah what do you expect from the media?

SOB

So, where's the proof of the conspiracy? I've seen (disgusting) proof on the other side. "If you want we could be closer", "Have you ever cummed in a guy's arse?"

funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined .....

John Smith wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 9:33am:

funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined .....

What is it that the LIBs arre trying to justify?

John Smith wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 9:33am:

funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined .....

Interesting post. I eagerly await your evidence and/or proof.

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

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 7:54am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:25am: http://www.waginargus.com.au/news/national/national/general/slipper-labor-hits-back/2592668.aspx Quote: THE federal government has accused former aides of Peter Slipper, a News Ltd journalist, the former Howard government minister Mal Brough and other senior Queensland Coalition identities of formulating a sexual harassment claim with the aim of destroying the Speaker. thats just page 1. go to the link for the rest. SOB Interesting that they used the word "formulating" rather than "fabricating" Heh yeah what do you expect from the media? SOB

Sorry it was Nicola who said it:

''A number of other participants other than the applicant [Mr Ashby] were party to formulating this complaint with the clear intent of publicising it before it was filed, with the clear intention of harming Mr Slipper and advantaging his political opponents.'' The Commonwealth will test its abuse-of-process application claim on July 23.

matty wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 9:35am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:33am: funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined ..... Interesting post. I eagerly await your evidence and/or proof.

Since when were you interested in proof? An article in a murdock paper barely rates as information let alone proof ... you're all ready to hang Thompson and Slipper and so far you've seen no proof ... bit of a double standard isn't it?

John Smith wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 9:39am:

matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:35am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:33am: funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined ..... Interesting post. I eagerly await your evidence and/or proof. Since when were you interested in proof? An article in a murdock paper barely rates as information let alone proof ... you're all ready to hand Thompson and Slipper and so far you've seen no proof ... bit of a double standard isn't it?

The FWA 1100-page report is not enough proof?

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 9:42am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:39am: matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:35am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:33am: funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined ..... Interesting post. I eagerly await your evidence and/or proof. Since when were you interested in proof? An article in a murdock paper barely rates as information let alone proof ... you're all ready to hand Thompson and Slipper and so far you've seen no proof ... bit of a double standard isn't it? The FWA 1100-page report is not enough proof?

not even close ... if there is any proof, there would be charges. ... as yet, none have been laid ... apart from the hooker, apparently she got laid several times

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 9:42am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:39am: matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:35am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:33am: funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined ..... Interesting post. I eagerly await your evidence and/or proof. Since when were you interested in proof? An article in a murdock paper barely rates as information let alone proof ... you're all ready to hand Thompson and Slipper and so far you've seen no proof ... bit of a double standard isn't it? The FWA 1100-page report is not enough proof?

It's credability does seem somewhat tainted.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 10:35am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:42am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:39am: matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:35am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:33am: funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined ..... Interesting post. I eagerly await your evidence and/or proof. Since when were you interested in proof? An article in a murdock paper barely rates as information let alone proof ... you're all ready to hand Thompson and Slipper and so far you've seen no proof ... bit of a double standard isn't it? The FWA 1100-page report is not enough proof? It's credability foes seem somewhat tainted.

Does that mean the sexual harassment didn't happen?

John Smith wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 9:55am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:42am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:39am: matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:35am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:33am: funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined ..... Interesting post. I eagerly await your evidence and/or proof. Since when were you interested in proof? An article in a murdock paper barely rates as information let alone proof ... you're all ready to hand Thompson and Slipper and so far you've seen no proof ... bit of a double standard isn't it? The FWA 1100-page report is not enough proof? not even close ... if there is any proof, there would be charges. ... as yet, none have been laid ... apart from the hooker, apparently she got laid several times

Then you do not understand the powers of the FWA

Do your research princess

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 10:34pm:

nairbe wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 10:31pm: matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 10:20pm: nairbe wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 10:16pm: matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:31pm: Slipper is guilty until proven innocent, and you can thank JuLIAR for that. How dose your demented mind come up with that dopey the clown? The only one that has the hang man mentality is Abbott. You are a real choice cut. >:( >:( Gillard reversed the onus of proof. Have you seen section 361 of the Fairwork Act? OH dear! :( :( :( It would seem that there is a very deep misunderstanding between legislative controles and legal proceedings. I deal regularly with a particular Act that has similar such controls. In fact in the Act i use in NSW i have the power to order you to answer questions whether you like it or not. This, if you understood the situation, is not a brief of evidence in a court nor unconditional in it's powers. How does that change the fact that fair work australia, the baby of labor, says in its law, you are guilty until proven innocent. How does it change the fact that labor said 'get out of our party until you prove yourself innocent' and we all know they are not going to endorse him anymore.

Progs your not now saying that she did the wrong thing after demanding she do it. Dear Oh Dear :-[

Many things are starting to get a special stench about them. Yep Thompson and Slipper look pretty silly but now as the real situations are beginning to emerg it is becoming clearer that the stench may be stronger somewhere else.

matty wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 8:49am:

So, where's the proof of the conspiracy? I've seen (disgusting) proof on the other side. "If you want we could be closer", "Have you ever cummed in a guy's arse?"

Matty, there's no need to get personal here. These leftards are just doing their job.

Anyway, you won't be needing your arse anymore, dear. You're now a fully equipped woman.

If you wish to arouse the object of your affection, I suggest starting casual and getting sexy only after dinner.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 11:27am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 10:35am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:42am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:39am: matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:35am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:33am: funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined ..... Interesting post. I eagerly await your evidence and/or proof. Since when were you interested in proof? An article in a murdock paper barely rates as information let alone proof ... you're all ready to hand Thompson and Slipper and so far you've seen no proof ... bit of a double standard isn't it? The FWA 1100-page report is not enough proof? It's credability foes seem somewhat tainted. Does that mean the sexual harassment didn't happen?

I don't know what did fair work say about sexual harrasment in its 1100 page report??

Facts took a while in 'Slippergate': Albanese
June 16, 2012 - 11:49AM

Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese has likened the Peter Slipper affair to America's Watergate scandal and called for a full disclosure of information from all the parties involved.    :o

Mr Slipper, who stood aside as parliamentary Speaker earlier this year, is being sued by staffer James Ashby over allegations of sexual harassment.

The Federal Court heard evidence on Friday that Mr Ashby and another Slipper staffer first sought to undermine their boss by providing a journalist with information about the allegations, which was subsequently widely reported by newspapers.    :(


Julian Burnside QC, lawyer for the commonwealth, also alleged that Mr Ashby provided politically sensitive material to Mr Slipper's political opponents, including Howard-era minister Mal Brough.

Mr Albanese likened the case on Saturday to the Watergate scandal, in which evidence about President Nixon's administration was passed to journalists and subsequently appeared in the Washington Post.

"What occurred during Watergate was that people attempted to obtain information in a way that wasn't legal and wasn't appropriate," he said.   :(

"It is also the case that it took a while for the facts to come out."

Mr Albanese said once the facts of the Slipper case were fully unravelled in court, the public would be able to make a judgment.

And he called on all those involved to fully disclose their roles.

"I think it is in everyone's interest, given the way the allegations were made so publicly and so dramatically, that there be full transparency in this.    :-?

"And that all the information be out there in full public view so that people can make their own decisions about what the involvement was in this."



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/facts-took-a-while-in-slippergate-albanese-20120616-20g9h.html#ixzz1xv51wPtj

Dnarever wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 11:27am: Dnarever wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 10:35am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:42am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:39am: matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:35am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:33am: funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined ..... Interesting post. I eagerly await your evidence and/or proof. Since when were you interested in proof? An article in a murdock paper barely rates as information let alone proof ... you're all ready to hand Thompson and Slipper and so far you've seen no proof ... bit of a double standard isn't it? The FWA 1100-page report is not enough proof? It's credability foes seem somewhat tainted. Does that mean the sexual harassment didn't happen? I don't know what did fair work say about sexual harrasment in its 1100 page report??

I was not aware Slipper is/was part of the HSU

John Smith wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 9:39am:

matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:35am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:33am: funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined ..... Interesting post. I eagerly await your evidence and/or proof. Since when were you interested in proof? An article in a murdock paper barely rates as information let alone proof ... you're all ready to hang Thompson and Slipper and so far you've seen no proof ... bit of a double standard isn't it?

You have nothing to support your wild accusations? What a shock!

nairbe wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 11:51am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 10:34pm: nairbe wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 10:31pm: matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 10:20pm: nairbe wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 10:16pm: matty wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:31pm: Slipper is guilty until proven innocent, and you can thank JuLIAR for that. How dose your demented mind come up with that dopey the clown? The only one that has the hang man mentality is Abbott. You are a real choice cut. >:( >:( Gillard reversed the onus of proof. Have you seen section 361 of the Fairwork Act? OH dear! :( :( :( It would seem that there is a very deep misunderstanding between legislative controles and legal proceedings. I deal regularly with a particular Act that has similar such controls. In fact in the Act i use in NSW i have the power to order you to answer questions whether you like it or not. This, if you understood the situation, is not a brief of evidence in a court nor unconditional in it's powers. How does that change the fact that fair work australia, the baby of labor, says in its law, you are guilty until proven innocent. How does it change the fact that labor said 'get out of our party until you prove yourself innocent' and we all know they are not going to endorse him anymore. Progs your not now saying that she did the wrong thing after demanding she do it. Dear Oh Dear :-[ Many things are starting to get a special stench about them. Yep Thompson and Slipper look pretty silly but now as the real situations are beginning to emerg it is becoming clearer that the stench may be stronger somewhere else.

Care to explain the 1100 page report of FINDINGS? Not accusations, but FINDINGS.

So, how exactly is the case "about to explode IN Liberal's face"?

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 11:28am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:55am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:42am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:39am: matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:35am: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:33am: funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined ..... Interesting post. I eagerly await your evidence and/or proof. Since when were you interested in proof? An article in a murdock paper barely rates as information let alone proof ... you're all ready to hand Thompson and Slipper and so far you've seen no proof ... bit of a double standard isn't it? The FWA 1100-page report is not enough proof? not even close ... if there is any proof, there would be charges. ... as yet, none have been laid ... apart from the hooker, apparently she got laid several times Then you do not understand the powers of the FWA Do your research princess

they  have no power to determine a persons innocence or guilt in any crime ... that's all that matters .... thousands of government reports every year .. this is just another one ...  you seem to ignore  reports when it suits you .... run forrest .....

matty wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 1:42pm:

Care to explain the 1100 page report of FINDINGS? Not accusations, but FINDINGS.

The report is tainted and virtually worthless, the 2IC of FWA John Howard appointed and known to socialise with Tony Abbott - the Boss at the enquiry in bed with one of the suspects and supposed whistle blower, sharing information from the unfinished enquiry with one of the principals being investigated, Kick starting operation Carnarvon before the enquiry was finalised all adding up to improper dealings and impropriety in the process. Put this together with free legal assistance from the favoured legal team of the Liberals and HR Nichols society and things start to look pretty grubby and doubtful. 

A finding with little credability.

The right thing needs to be seen to be done - in this case not even close.

matty wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 1:44pm:

So, how exactly is the case "about to explode IN Liberal's face"?

Matty, Mr Slipper is still a member of the Liberal Party. If James Ashby and Mr Slipper kiss and make up, he's sure to get something on his face.

LNP hands all over Slippergate, LNP hands all over Hookergate

This could be the dodgiest Opposition in the history of Australia's Parliament

Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 4:23pm:

matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 1:44pm: So, how exactly is the case "about to explode IN Liberal's face"? Matty, Mr Slipper is still a member of the Liberal Party. If James Ashby and Mr Slipper kiss and make up, he's sure to get something on his face.

Do you think they would ever do that? Maybe at the Christmas party......or after.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 4:23pm: matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 1:44pm: So, how exactly is the case "about to explode IN Liberal's face"? Matty, Mr Slipper is still a member of the Liberal Party. If James Ashby and Mr Slipper kiss and make up, he's sure to get something on his face. Do you think they would ever do that? Maybe at the Christmas party......or after.

Christmas party, caucus meetings, branch meetings, it happens all the time, Pansi. As a member of the Liberal Party, Matty's used to it. He tried joining the Greens once, but there wasn't as much action. Sure, a lot of talk about animal welfare, but most of it was just hot air.

There's a lot more action in the Libs.

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:

LNP hands all over Slippergate, LNP hands all over Hookergate This could be the dodgiest Opposition in the history of Australia's Parliament

no could be about it.

This could be is the dodgiest Opposition in the history of Australia's Parliament

This is sooooooooooooooooooo funny. But wait,there's more, this could well be the end of Abbott, this will make the Godwin Grech set up scandal ,that took down Turnbull, look like child's play. Abbott could be gone in days. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I will again ask for the evidence/proof that the LNP had anything to do with Slipper, let alone Thomson.

matty wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 6:16pm:

I will again ask for the evidence/proof that the LNP had anything to do with Slipper, let alone Thomson.

....How about tghe fact Mal Brough was SUBPOENED to appear in court to answer questions about his involvement?

If you were actually educated in Politics, you'd know Brough has plans to run in Slippers seat at the next election.

matty wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 6:16pm:

I will again ask for the evidence/proof that the LNP had anything to do with Slipper, let alone Thomson.

PROOF!???  HERE'S YA PROOF!

http://dorrys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/flip-the-bird1.jpg

A hypocritical suckhole like you should be embarrassed to even say the word.

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 6:25pm:

matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:16pm: I will again ask for the evidence/proof that the LNP had anything to do with Slipper, let alone Thomson. ....How about tghe fact Mal Brough was SUBPOENED to appear in court to answer questions about his involvement? If you were actually educated in Politics, you'd know Brough has plans to run in Slippers seat at the next election.

Yes, I did know that, and again ask for the evidence and/or proof involvement.

There IS proof that Slipper is guilty. Look at the texts. Disgusting pervert.

matty wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 6:36pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:25pm: matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:16pm: I will again ask for the evidence/proof that the LNP had anything to do with Slipper, let alone Thomson. ....How about tghe fact Mal Brough was SUBPOENED to appear in court to answer questions about his involvement? If you were actually educated in Politics, you'd know Brough has plans to run in Slippers seat at the next election. Yes, I did know that, and again ask for the evidence and/or proof involvement. There IS proof that Slipper is guilty. Look at the texts. Disgusting pervert.

Yes, Matty, but being a disgusting pervert is part of the job. It doesn't make you guilty.

If that was the case no one would enter politics. Think of all the young, rising talent that would be lost. People like James Ashby would be forced to become gigolos or male strippers.

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 6:25pm:

matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:16pm: I will again ask for the evidence/proof that the LNP had anything to do with Slipper, let alone Thomson. ....How about tghe fact Mal Brough was SUBPOENED to appear in court to answer questions about his involvement? If you were actually educated in Politics, you'd know Brough has plans to run in Slippers seat at the next election.

Involvment?

Are you suggesting that he was involved in helping Slipper to harass Ashby?

Or

Is the involvement in helping Ashby to gather the facts about the above harassment?

Maqqa, why would James Ashby need Mal Brough to help him gather facts about his own sexual harassment?

The evidence is clear that Mal Brough helped James Ashby be sexually harassed by Mr Slipper - but James Ashby clearly cherished his time with Mr Slipper and will look back on their time together with fond memories.

There is nothing wrong with two men enjoying each other's company, their intimacy and the tenderness they share. Mr Slipper has every right to expect his staffers to perform their duties.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 7:03pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:25pm: matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:16pm: I will again ask for the evidence/proof that the LNP had anything to do with Slipper, let alone Thomson. ....How about tghe fact Mal Brough was SUBPOENED to appear in court to answer questions about his involvement? If you were actually educated in Politics, you'd know Brough has plans to run in Slippers seat at the next election. Involvment? Are you suggesting that he was involved in helping Slipper to harass Ashby? Or Is the involvement in helping Ashby to gather the facts about the above harassment?

Why is it whenever someone feels a crime has been perpetrated they feel the urge to run to their nearest and dearest Lib party member?  ... personally I've never had the inclination to go to any politician, lib or lab to report any sort of crime... i always call the cops first ....  let me guess ... they are trying to perform their civic duty? .....

Yes, John, but perhaps James Ashby consulted Mal Brough in his capacity as a member of the Liberal Party - the party of justice and a fair go for all Australians.

Yes, Mal Brough is yet to be preselected and win a seat, but there are a number of Liberal politicians in the same situation. Some attend meetings of the Greens as well, in Ryde and Hornsby - near the shops.

It's quite common.

We need to remember all this from the left whenever a woman comes out and says she was sexually harassed.

It can only be that if she asked for help and received it, then the helpers and victim are the actual perpetrators.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 8:06am:

We need to remember all this from the left whenever a woman comes out and says she was sexually harassed. It can only be that if she asked for help and received it, then the helpers and victim are the actual perpetrators.

And if they ALP gets any benefits out of it or are proven to be involved in assisting the victim then the allegations should be ignored

Karnal wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

Maqqa, why would James Ashby need Mal Brough to help him gather facts about his own sexual harassment? The evidence is clear that Mal Brough helped James Ashby be sexually harassed by Mr Slipper - but James Ashby clearly cherished his time with Mr Slipper and will look back on their time together with fond memories. There is nothing wrong with two men enjoying each other's company, their intimacy and the tenderness they share. Mr Slipper has every right to expect his staffers to perform their duties.

why would James Ashby need Mal Brough to help

Maybe he was suggested by Pyne in one of the meetings he had with Ashby?

Maqqa wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 8:13am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:06am: We need to remember all this from the left whenever a woman comes out and says she was sexually harassed. It can only be that if she asked for help and received it, then the helpers and victim are the actual perpetrators. And if they ALP gets any benefits out of it or are proven to be involved in assisting the victim then the allegations should be ignored

It becomes a question of credibility  ... if the victim has proven to be a liar, why would you suddenly believe the claim just because it suits you politically? if you want people to believe you don't lie all the time ...... surely your  not suggesting the police have ignored the claims?

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 8:59am:

Karnal wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 7:52pm: Maqqa, why would James Ashby need Mal Brough to help him gather facts about his own sexual harassment? The evidence is clear that Mal Brough helped James Ashby be sexually harassed by Mr Slipper - but James Ashby clearly cherished his time with Mr Slipper and will look back on their time together with fond memories. There is nothing wrong with two men enjoying each other's company, their intimacy and the tenderness they share. Mr Slipper has every right to expect his staffers to perform their duties. why would James Ashby need Mal Brough to help Maybe he was suggested by Pyne in one of the meetings he had with Ashby?

Lets see

(1) Ashby works in politics and maybe he's afraid that his political career will be in jeopardy?

(2) This week you've got sailors coming out to say they've been raped and never said anything before because of the same reason

(3) Ashby talking to Brough could be because he wants to know if he's doing the right thing.

Put yourself in the situation. If Ashby approached you and say that Slipper was sexually harassing him what would you do if:

(i) You had no political affiliation

(ii) If you belong to the LIBs

(iii) If you belonged to the ALP

(iv) If you belonged to the Greens

(v) If you belonged to any other political party


The answer should be the same regardless of the options above!!

Sure in each option there will be benefits and/or damages - but the answer should be the same in each case.

(a) go to the AFP

(b) see a lawyer

(c) tell someone

(d) get your facts straight because the defendants will defend itself rigorously

John Smith wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 9:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:13am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:06am: We need to remember all this from the left whenever a woman comes out and says she was sexually harassed. It can only be that if she asked for help and received it, then the helpers and victim are the actual perpetrators. And if they ALP gets any benefits out of it or are proven to be involved in assisting the victim then the allegations should be ignored It becomes a question of credibility  ... if the victim has proven to be a liar, why would you suddenly believe the claim just because it suits you politically? if you want people to believe you don't lie all the time ...... surely your  not suggesting the police have ignored the claims?

facts are facts

The sun will rise tomorrow is a fact regardless who makes the comment

Maqqa wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 9:12am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:07am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:13am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:06am: We need to remember all this from the left whenever a woman comes out and says she was sexually harassed. It can only be that if she asked for help and received it, then the helpers and victim are the actual perpetrators. And if they ALP gets any benefits out of it or are proven to be involved in assisting the victim then the allegations should be ignored It becomes a question of credibility  ... if the victim has proven to be a liar, why would you suddenly believe the claim just because it suits you politically? if you want people to believe you don't lie all the time ...... surely your  not suggesting the police have ignored the claims? facts are facts The sun will rise tomorrow is a fact regardless who makes the comment

Utegate was a fact - it happened.

This looks very similar with opposition ministers and senior Liberals clearly involved in the early stages of this process making it more difficult to seperate political gain as a motive from any genuine case of improper conduct or even a set up.

The circumstances around this case are also fact and matters which need to be cleared up in order to get to the truth of the matter.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 9:27am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:12am: John Smith wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:07am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:13am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:06am: We need to remember all this from the left whenever a woman comes out and says she was sexually harassed. It can only be that if she asked for help and received it, then the helpers and victim are the actual perpetrators. And if they ALP gets any benefits out of it or are proven to be involved in assisting the victim then the allegations should be ignored It becomes a question of credibility  ... if the victim has proven to be a liar, why would you suddenly believe the claim just because it suits you politically? if you want people to believe you don't lie all the time ...... surely your  not suggesting the police have ignored the claims? facts are facts The sun will rise tomorrow is a fact regardless who makes the comment Utegate was a fact - it happened. This looks very similar with opposition ministers and senior Liberals clearly involved in the early stages of this process making it more difficult to seperate political gain as a motive from any genuine case of improper conduct or even a set up. The circumstances around this case are also fact and matters which need to be cleared up in order to get to the truth of the matter.

If you continue to bring up "Utegate" why do you guys want Turnbull?

Utegate did lots of damage to Turnbull pulling down the LIBs 2PP numbers significantly

Abbott on the other hand has increased it to 57/43 despite his own personal numbers. But then again all he has to do is win his seat

Therefore the only reason why you want Turnbull back is you are afraid of the 57/43 number

Maqqa wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 9:32am:

If you continue to bring up "Utegate" why do you guys want Turnbull? Utegate did lots of damage to Turnbull pulling down the LIBs 2PP numbers significantly Abbott on the other hand has increased it to 57/43 despite his own personal numbers. But then again all he has to do is win his seat Therefore the only reason why you want Turnbull back is you are afraid of the 57/43 number

I have had some professional interation with Turnbull and rate him almost as low as Abbott - I have never suggested going back to Turnbull.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 9:35am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:32am: If you continue to bring up "Utegate" why do you guys want Turnbull? Utegate did lots of damage to Turnbull pulling down the LIBs 2PP numbers significantly Abbott on the other hand has increased it to 57/43 despite his own personal numbers. But then again all he has to do is win his seat Therefore the only reason why you want Turnbull back is you are afraid of the 57/43 number I have had some professional interation with Turnbull and rate him almost as low as Abbott - I have never suggested going back to Turnbull.

What happened?

I really can'ty see much here that suggests a cionspiracy. Maqqa's post of the scenario looks pretty much bang-on to me.

I have examined the texts, and it's pretty clear that they're sexually-motivated. I can't see how this can possibly be overlooked.

john_g wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:35am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:32am: If you continue to bring up "Utegate" why do you guys want Turnbull? Utegate did lots of damage to Turnbull pulling down the LIBs 2PP numbers significantly Abbott on the other hand has increased it to 57/43 despite his own personal numbers. But then again all he has to do is win his seat Therefore the only reason why you want Turnbull back is you are afraid of the 57/43 number I have had some professional interation with Turnbull and rate him almost as low as Abbott - I have never suggested going back to Turnbull. What happened?

Nothing exciting just some business negotiations - a series of meetings, not considered proper to talk about the details.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:09pm:

john_g wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:35am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:32am: If you continue to bring up "Utegate" why do you guys want Turnbull? Utegate did lots of damage to Turnbull pulling down the LIBs 2PP numbers significantly Abbott on the other hand has increased it to 57/43 despite his own personal numbers. But then again all he has to do is win his seat Therefore the only reason why you want Turnbull back is you are afraid of the 57/43 number I have had some professional interation with Turnbull and rate him almost as low as Abbott - I have never suggested going back to Turnbull. What happened? Nothing exciting just some business negotiations - a series of meetings, not considered proper to talk about the details.

Oh no, I fully understand and appreciate that, just wondering how you found him as a person, ie, his personality. He's my local member, but I've never met him. Only changed electorates earlier this year, used to have Brownyn Bishop as my local MP.

john_g wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:09pm: john_g wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:35am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:32am: If you continue to bring up "Utegate" why do you guys want Turnbull? Utegate did lots of damage to Turnbull pulling down the LIBs 2PP numbers significantly Abbott on the other hand has increased it to 57/43 despite his own personal numbers. But then again all he has to do is win his seat Therefore the only reason why you want Turnbull back is you are afraid of the 57/43 number I have had some professional interation with Turnbull and rate him almost as low as Abbott - I have never suggested going back to Turnbull. What happened? Nothing exciting just some business negotiations - a series of meetings, not considered proper to talk about the details. Oh no, I fully understand and appreciate that, just wondering how you found him as a person, ie, his personality. He's my local member, but I've never met him. Only changed electorates earlier this year, used to have Brownyn Bishop as my local MP.

Thats the bit I was avoiding - we didn't get along but I have to say that he seems a lot more balanced and reasonable in the media these days.

From Bishop to Turnbull - you have my sympathy. I voted in Bronwyns electorate last time around but unfortunatly voted out of area for someone a bit embarrising to name.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:27pm:

john_g wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:09pm: john_g wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:35am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:32am: If you continue to bring up "Utegate" why do you guys want Turnbull? Utegate did lots of damage to Turnbull pulling down the LIBs 2PP numbers significantly Abbott on the other hand has increased it to 57/43 despite his own personal numbers. But then again all he has to do is win his seat Therefore the only reason why you want Turnbull back is you are afraid of the 57/43 number I have had some professional interation with Turnbull and rate him almost as low as Abbott - I have never suggested going back to Turnbull. What happened? Nothing exciting just some business negotiations - a series of meetings, not considered proper to talk about the details. Oh no, I fully understand and appreciate that, just wondering how you found him as a person, ie, his personality. He's my local member, but I've never met him. Only changed electorates earlier this year, used to have Brownyn Bishop as my local MP. Thats the bit I was avoiding - we didn't get along but I have to say that he seems a lot more balanced and reasonable in the media these days. From Bishop to Turnbull - you have my sympathy. I voted in Bronwyns electorate last time around but unfortunatly voted out of area for someone a bit embarrising to name.

Utegate will haunt him. So will his support for the Carbon Tax.

Abbott only challenged because Turnbull supported the carbon tax

If Turnbull ever gets back in - this will be the area the ALP will successfully attack him in

I am starting to think that Ashby may be a scorned lover. He probably found out that Slpper was having it off with other men as well, so has one this to get back at him.

I agree with Maqqa and John, and I am STILL awaiting the evidence and/or proof that Mr Brough conspired with Mr Ashby to concoct such a a story. I watched the Bolt Report this morning, and he was on there. As he said, it's outrageous, and it shows a clear desperation all too akin to this divided and directionless government.

I don't understand matty. I gave you the proof. Didn't you read it?

Gist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

I don't understand matty. I gave you the proof. Didn't you read it?

He only reads what he wants to read, usually the Bible and Andrew Bolts column.

Gist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

I don't understand matty. I gave you the proof. Didn't you read it?

Sorry, I am asking for ACTUAL proof.

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 4:44pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:42pm: I don't understand matty. I gave you the proof. Didn't you read it? He only reads what he wants to read, usually the Bible and Andrew Bolts column.

Was that supposed to be an insult?

matty wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:31pm:

I agree with Maqqa and John, and I am STILL awaiting the evidence and/or proof that Mr Brough conspired with Mr Ashby to concoct such a a story. I watched the Bolt Report this morning, and he was on there. As he said, it's outrageous, and it shows a clear desperation all too akin to this divided and directionless government.

Well before the complaints he was undermining Slipper and leaking information, His relationship with Pyne is I would think more relivant than Brough.

Neither would be amoung the first few hundred million choices to turn to for advice of this nature.

And then coincidentally he has the same Legal team as Cathy Jackson also free of charge the same guys who specialise in working for the Liberals and HR Nichols society.

There is a point where claiming coincidence becomes rediculous.

matty wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 10:06pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:44pm: Gist wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:42pm: I don't understand matty. I gave you the proof. Didn't you read it? He only reads what he wants to read, usually the Bible and Andrew Bolts column. Was that supposed to be an insult?

There was a time when I liked to read Akerman every day, It was good to start the day with a predictable laugh but he has lost his sence of humor and it is only nasty tripe left.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 10:54pm:

matty wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:31pm: I agree with Maqqa and John, and I am STILL awaiting the evidence and/or proof that Mr Brough conspired with Mr Ashby to concoct such a a story. I watched the Bolt Report this morning, and he was on there. As he said, it's outrageous, and it shows a clear desperation all too akin to this divided and directionless government. Well before the complaints he was undermining Slipper and leaking information, His relationship with Pyne is I would think more relivant than Brough. Neither would be amoung the first few hundred million choices to turn to for advice of this nature. And then coincidentally he has the same Legal team as Cathy Jackson also free of charge the same guys who specialise in working for the Liberals and HR Nichols society. There is a point where claiming coincidence becomes rediculous.

Who knows how many other staffers to whom Slipper has done this. There was a case of him having sex with a young male staffer in 2003, and pushing another male staffer against a wall at a later time, for rejecting his flirtations. Mal Brough is a local, and Mr Ashby probably thought to ask him what to do, as he was intimidated. Maqqa's post more than covers this. Mr Ashby is being represented by the lawyer who successfully represented the employee who accused the DJ boss (whose name currently evades me) a few years ago. I see nothing fantastical about this at all.

Then we come to the texts - how can you tell me with a straight face, dna, that these do not imply sexual interest and intent on the part of Slipper?

I know sexual harassment, from first-hand experience.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 11:03pm:

matty wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 10:06pm: GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:44pm: Gist wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:42pm: I don't understand matty. I gave you the proof. Didn't you read it? He only reads what he wants to read, usually the Bible and Andrew Bolts column. Was that supposed to be an insult? There was a time when I liked to read Akerman every day, It was good to start the day with a predictable laugh but he has lost his sence of humor and it is only nasty tripe left.

Piers provides a fresh insight into the political world. His columns are a great read, as are Andrew Bolt's, and Alan Jones's breakfast show.

matty wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 11:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 10:54pm: matty wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:31pm: I agree with Maqqa and John, and I am STILL awaiting the evidence and/or proof that Mr Brough conspired with Mr Ashby to concoct such a a story. I watched the Bolt Report this morning, and he was on there. As he said, it's outrageous, and it shows a clear desperation all too akin to this divided and directionless government. Well before the complaints he was undermining Slipper and leaking information, His relationship with Pyne is I would think more relivant than Brough. Neither would be amoung the first few hundred million choices to turn to for advice of this nature. And then coincidentally he has the same Legal team as Cathy Jackson also free of charge the same guys who specialise in working for the Liberals and HR Nichols society. There is a point where claiming coincidence becomes rediculous. Who knows how many other staffers to whom Slipper has done this. There was a case of him having sex with a young male staffer in 2003, and pushing another male staffer against a wall at a later time, for rejecting his flirtations. Mal Brough is a local, and Mr Ashby probably thought to ask him what to do, as he was intimidated. Maqqa's post more than covers this. Mr Ashby is being represented by the lawyer who successfully represented the employee who accused the DJ boss (whose name currently evades me) a few years ago. I see nothing fantastical about this at all. Then we come to the texts - how can you tell me with a straight face, dna, that these do not imply sexual interest and intent on the part of Slipper? I know sexual harassment, from first-hand experience.

Do you have any proof of the allegations against Slipper or is it a different standard when the other way around?

Itis interesting that these known facts about slipper all occurred about a decade ago and Slipper was re endorsed about 3 times since then as the most appropriate and respected representative conservative for his seat by both John Howard and Tnoy Abbnott.

Apparently acceptable behaviour if you are one of them but unacceptable if you are not with the Liberals.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 11:17pm:

matty wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 11:11pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 10:54pm: matty wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:31pm: I agree with Maqqa and John, and I am STILL awaiting the evidence and/or proof that Mr Brough conspired with Mr Ashby to concoct such a a story. I watched the Bolt Report this morning, and he was on there. As he said, it's outrageous, and it shows a clear desperation all too akin to this divided and directionless government. Well before the complaints he was undermining Slipper and leaking information, His relationship with Pyne is I would think more relivant than Brough. Neither would be amoung the first few hundred million choices to turn to for advice of this nature. And then coincidentally he has the same Legal team as Cathy Jackson also free of charge the same guys who specialise in working for the Liberals and HR Nichols society. There is a point where claiming coincidence becomes rediculous. Who knows how many other staffers to whom Slipper has done this. There was a case of him having sex with a young male staffer in 2003, and pushing another male staffer against a wall at a later time, for rejecting his flirtations. Mal Brough is a local, and Mr Ashby probably thought to ask him what to do, as he was intimidated. Maqqa's post more than covers this. Mr Ashby is being represented by the lawyer who successfully represented the employee who accused the DJ boss (whose name currently evades me) a few years ago. I see nothing fantastical about this at all. Then we come to the texts - how can you tell me with a straight face, dna, that these do not imply sexual interest and intent on the part of Slipper? I know sexual harassment, from first-hand experience. Do you have any proof of the allegations against Slipper or is it a different standard when the other way around? Itis interesting that these known facts about slipper all occurred about a decade ago and Slipper was re endorsed about 3 times since then as the most appropriate and respected representative conservative for his seat by both John Howard and Tnoy Abbnott. Apparently acceptable behaviour if you are one of them but unacceptable if you are not with the Liberals.

1. Slipper having (consensual) sex with a staffer is not an illegal activity.

2. It wasn't up to John Howard or Tony Abbott. It's the decision of the local branch, and the local branch alone. Look at the case with Patrick Secker.

3. If the LNP branch knew full well of the case/s, then yes, they should not have endorsed him. I am not going to defend that whatsoever.

4. Could you please answer my original question? What do you make of the proven texts?

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 10:54pm:

matty wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:31pm: I agree with Maqqa and John, and I am STILL awaiting the evidence and/or proof that Mr Brough conspired with Mr Ashby to concoct such a a story. I watched the Bolt Report this morning, and he was on there. As he said, it's outrageous, and it shows a clear desperation all too akin to this divided and directionless government. Well before the complaints he was undermining Slipper and leaking information, His relationship with Pyne is I would think more relivant than Brough.As Pyne have always said - as the Manager of Opposition Business in the House he has contact with the Speaker's office all the time. That fact seems to be conveniently left out by the left Neither would be amoung the first few hundred million choices to turn to for advice of this nature. That's you and you don't know him. But to Ashby it might be different so who are you to tell him what he should or shouldn't do? And then coincidentally he has the same Legal team as Cathy Jackson also free of charge the same guys who specialise in working for the Liberals and HR Nichols society. Therefore the allegations of Ashby is not credible There is a point where claiming coincidence becomes rediculous. Tell that to the 1,100 pages the FWA came out with then match it up with what Thommo said

matty wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 10:06pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:44pm: Gist wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:42pm: I don't understand matty. I gave you the proof. Didn't you read it? He only reads what he wants to read, usually the Bible and Andrew Bolts column. Was that supposed to be an insult?

Not supposed to be, was. Anyone who reads those two things is definitely swimming at the lower end of the gene pool.

Just because Peter Slipper left the LNP does not mean his staff did....Slipper was white anted by the LNP when he defected.....His actions where acceptable until he left the ranks of the LNP!!!

>:( >:( >:(

TheGreenLight wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 2:18pm:

I am starting to think that Ashby may be a scorned lover. He probably found out that Slpper was having it off with other men as well, so has one this to get back at him.

Yea, I've thought that all along.

matty wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 11:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 10:54pm: matty wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:31pm: I agree with Maqqa and John, and I am STILL awaiting the evidence and/or proof that Mr Brough conspired with Mr Ashby to concoct such a a story. I watched the Bolt Report this morning, and he was on there. As he said, it's outrageous, and it shows a clear desperation all too akin to this divided and directionless government. Well before the complaints he was undermining Slipper and leaking information, His relationship with Pyne is I would think more relivant than Brough. Neither would be amoung the first few hundred million choices to turn to for advice of this nature. And then coincidentally he has the same Legal team as Cathy Jackson also free of charge the same guys who specialise in working for the Liberals and HR Nichols society. There is a point where claiming coincidence becomes rediculous. Who knows how many other staffers to whom Slipper has done this. There was a case of him having sex with a young male staffer in 2003, and pushing another male staffer against a wall at a later time, for rejecting his flirtations. Mal Brough is a local, and Mr Ashby probably thought to ask him what to do, as he was intimidated. Maqqa's post more than covers this. Mr Ashby is being represented by the lawyer who successfully represented the employee who accused the DJ boss (whose name currently evades me) a few years ago. I see nothing fantastical about this at all. Then we come to the texts - how can you tell me with a straight face, dna, that these do not imply sexual interest and intent on the part of Slipper? I know sexual harassment, from first-hand experience.

I hope the poor fella you harassed went to the police,soxy.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 2:05am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 10:54pm: matty wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:31pm: I agree with Maqqa and John, and I am STILL awaiting the evidence and/or proof that Mr Brough conspired with Mr Ashby to concoct such a a story. I watched the Bolt Report this morning, and he was on there. As he said, it's outrageous, and it shows a clear desperation all too akin to this divided and directionless government. Well before the complaints he was undermining Slipper and leaking information, His relationship with Pyne is I would think more relivant than Brough.As Pyne have always said - as the Manager of Opposition Business in the House he has contact with the Speaker's office all the time. That fact seems to be conveniently left out by the left Neither would be amoung the first few hundred million choices to turn to for advice of this nature. That's you and you don't know him. But to Ashby it might be different so who are you to tell him what he should or shouldn't do? And then coincidentally he has the same Legal team as Cathy Jackson also free of charge the same guys who specialise in working for the Liberals and HR Nichols society. Therefore the allegations of Ashby is not credible There is a point where claiming coincidence becomes rediculous. Tell that to the 1,100 pages the FWA came out with then match it up with what Thommo said

Quote:

as the Manager of Opposition Business in the House he has contact with the Speaker's office all the time

Having drinks in the speakers office with no speaker present and asking for his personal contact information _ Pyne typically likes to have a more intimate relationship with the employees of the speaker as part of his job?


Quote:

And then coincidentally he has the same Legal team as Cathy Jackson also free of charge the same guys who specialise in working for the Liberals and HR Nichols society. [b]Therefore the allegations of Ashby is not credible

It is difficult to establish credability and there is a judge being paid to do that but it does look a lot like the Liberals have been involved in these matters from very early in the process to the extent of assisting with legal representation as a minimum.


Quote:

[b]Therefore the allegations of Ashby is not credible

He seems to have taken all the necessary steps to infer that his claims credability is in doubt.

His interation with senior Liberals with a clear political gain in the matter, The free use of the Liberals / HR puff n stuff legal team with his undermining of his employer while in the job. Leaks to the media, Known to have been working against Slipper in his electorate etc.

Was he harrassed, is he another Gordon Gretch or was the whole thing a set up from the start given that he was having meetings with senior Liberals possibly all along the way did he join the speakers office with a very different agenda.

While it is obvious that the Liberals have been involved up to their necks is the organisation of this I have no idea if it is based on genuine harrasment or any of the other possibilities.

You have to admit had he gone to talk to his Aunt Mary or a psycologist and was paying for his legal support  from some randon legal group his claims would look to be a lot better founded instead of talking to the Liberals and the media with the free supplied legal support.

Nobody is going to talk to any senior Liberal you do not know about sexual harrasment unless the interest is in getting away with it or there is something in it for them.

matty wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 11:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 10:54pm: matty wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:31pm: I agree with Maqqa and John, and I am STILL awaiting the evidence and/or proof that Mr Brough conspired with Mr Ashby to concoct such a a story. I watched the Bolt Report this morning, and he was on there. As he said, it's outrageous, and it shows a clear desperation all too akin to this divided and directionless government. Well before the complaints he was undermining Slipper and leaking information, His relationship with Pyne is I would think more relivant than Brough. Neither would be amoung the first few hundred million choices to turn to for advice of this nature. And then coincidentally he has the same Legal team as Cathy Jackson also free of charge the same guys who specialise in working for the Liberals and HR Nichols society. There is a point where claiming coincidence becomes rediculous. Who knows how many other staffers to whom Slipper has done this. There was a case of him having sex with a young male staffer in 2003, and pushing another male staffer against a wall at a later time, for rejecting his flirtations. Mal Brough is a local, and Mr Ashby probably thought to ask him what to do, as he was intimidated. Maqqa's post more than covers this. Mr Ashby is being represented by the lawyer who successfully represented the employee who accused the DJ boss (whose name currently evades me) a few years ago. I see nothing fantastical about this at all. Then we come to the texts - how can you tell me with a straight face, dna, that these do not imply sexual interest and intent on the part of Slipper? I know sexual harassment, from first-hand experience.

Yes, Matty, but that doesn't count. We were only having a wank.

matty wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 11:24pm:

1. Slipper having (consensual) sex with a staffer is not an illegal activity. Its consensual whey you are a Liberal 2. It wasn't up to John Howard or Tony Abbott. It's the decision of the local branch, and the local branch alone. Look at the case with Patrick Secker. You know where the buck stops? 3. If the LNP branch knew full well of the case/s, then yes, they should not have endorsed him. I am not going to defend that whatsoever. 4. Could you please answer my original question? What do you make of the proven texts?

I have never seen them and am not aware of the context in which they were sent.

Was Slipper being led to believe that it was consensual?

Was there any harrasment or is it all just a political strategy is he another Gordon Gretch or just a victum who has taken the worst possible actions to undermine his own credability.

The proven texts show that Mr Slipper was clearly in love with James Ashby.

Is anyone suggesting that the relationship went only one way?

No. It takes two to tango. James Ashby had participated in a number of massage/fondling sessions with Mr Slipper prior to Mr Slipper falling in love with him. Mr Slipper was clearly besotted, and by all accounts, found James Ashby to be a cutie-pie.

There's the proof right there.

Ashby is as guilty as sin. He colluded with his new best friends Pyne and Brough against Slipper.

I think its time Pyne stepped down from his position until this matter is resolved.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 9:33am:

matty wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 11:24pm: 1. Slipper having (consensual) sex with a staffer is not an illegal activity. Its consensual whey you are a Liberal 2. It wasn't up to John Howard or Tony Abbott. It's the decision of the local branch, and the local branch alone. Look at the case with Patrick Secker. You know where the buck stops? 3. If the LNP branch knew full well of the case/s, then yes, they should not have endorsed him. I am not going to defend that whatsoever. 4. Could you please answer my original question? What do you make of the proven texts? I have never seen them and am not aware of the context in which they were sent. Was Slipper being led to believe that it was consensual? Was there any harrasment or is it all just a political strategy is he another Gordon Gretch or just a victum who has taken the worst possible actions to undermine his own credability.

It was consensual, according to reports, and as I said, blame the local branch, not Mr Howard and/or Mr Abbott.

These are (just some of the ) proen texts:

"Would be good if you here but perhaps we are not close enough?".

"U getting roks off. Pity".

"U want something more? U brillianmt (sic) at massages".

Gist wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 10:11am:

Ashby is as guilty as sin. He colluded with his new best friends Pyne and Brough against Slipper. I think its time Pyne stepped down from his position until this matter is resolved.

I'll ask, yet again, for proof and/or evidence.

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 2:06am:

matty wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 10:06pm: GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:44pm: Gist wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:42pm: I don't understand matty. I gave you the proof. Didn't you read it? He only reads what he wants to read, usually the Bible and Andrew Bolts column. Was that supposed to be an insult? Not supposed to be, was. Anyone who reads those two things is definitely swimming at the lower end of the gene pool.

Well, I didn't take it as such. I do read those things, and for good reason, too.

matty wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 10:15am:

Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:11am: Ashby is as guilty as sin. He colluded with his new best friends Pyne and Brough against Slipper. I think its time Pyne stepped down from his position until this matter is resolved. I'll ask, yet again, for proof and/or evidence.

Geezus, matty, how many times do I have to show you the proof before you understand it? Here it is again:

http://dorrys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/flip-the-bird1.jpg

Gist wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 10:19am:

matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:15am: Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:11am: Ashby is as guilty as sin. He colluded with his new best friends Pyne and Brough against Slipper. I think its time Pyne stepped down from his position until this matter is resolved. I'll ask, yet again, for proof and/or evidence. Geezus, matty, how many times do I have to show you the proof before you understand it? Here it is again: http://dorrys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/flip-the-bird1.jpg

Thank you very much for yet again proving my point.

matty wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 10:23am:

Thank you very much for yet again proving my point.

You still don't understand it do you?

Gist wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 10:41am:

matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Thank you very much for yet again proving my point. You still don't understand it do you?

Yes, I do. You have no evidence for your claims of a conspiracy between Mr Ashby and LNP members.

matty wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 10:51am:

Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:41am: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Thank you very much for yet again proving my point. You still don't understand it do you? Yes, I do. You have no evidence for your claims of a conspiracy between Mr Ashby and LNP members.

As I've said previously matty. The ALP are really desperate now so they will base their argument on:

(1) Facts they made up eg they said Abbott made a comment about Whyalla being wiped off the map when that comment came from a senior Union official

(2) Ignoring facts eg saying Abbott is gone even though the polls sits at 57/43

(3) Based on assumed facts - they just assume it will be bad

Maqqa wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 10:54am:

matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:51am: Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:41am: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Thank you very much for yet again proving my point. You still don't understand it do you? Yes, I do. You have no evidence for your claims of a conspiracy between Mr Ashby and LNP members. As I've said previously matty. The ALP are really desperate now so they will base their argument on: (1) Facts they made up eg they said Abbott made a comment about Whyalla being wiped off the map when that comment came from a senior Union official (2) Ignoring facts eg saying Abbott is gone even though the polls sits at 57/43 (3) Based on assumed facts - they just assume it will be bad

Too true, Maqqa. Their desperation knows no bounds. No proof, no evidence, just baseless smear and accusations. The blatantly sexual texts are there for all to see, yet the just deny or bypass these and talk about how "clear" it is that this was a set-up and conspiracy. Pathetic and desperate in the extreme.

Also nice to see skippy, that great left-wing socialist make light of sexual harassment.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 9:12am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:07am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:13am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:06am: We need to remember all this from the left whenever a woman comes out and says she was sexually harassed. It can only be that if she asked for help and received it, then the helpers and victim are the actual perpetrators. And if they ALP gets any benefits out of it or are proven to be involved in assisting the victim then the allegations should be ignored It becomes a question of credibility  ... if the victim has proven to be a liar, why would you suddenly believe the claim just because it suits you politically? if you want people to believe you don't lie all the time ...... surely your  not suggesting the police have ignored the claims? facts are facts The sun will rise tomorrow is a fact regardless who makes the comment

so now the abuse is a fact? I wasn't aware anybody had been found guilty of any crime .... or does the word facts mean something else to you?  how do you know it's a fact? is it because a proven liar says so?

John Smith wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 12:15pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:12am: John Smith wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:07am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:13am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:06am: We need to remember all this from the left whenever a woman comes out and says she was sexually harassed. It can only be that if she asked for help and received it, then the helpers and victim are the actual perpetrators. And if they ALP gets any benefits out of it or are proven to be involved in assisting the victim then the allegations should be ignored It becomes a question of credibility  ... if the victim has proven to be a liar, why would you suddenly believe the claim just because it suits you politically? if you want people to believe you don't lie all the time ...... surely your  not suggesting the police have ignored the claims? facts are facts The sun will rise tomorrow is a fact regardless who makes the comment so now the abuse is a fact? I wasn't aware anybody had been found guilty of any crime .... or does the word facts mean something else to you?  how do you know it's a fact? is it because a proven liar says so?

idiot

I am highlighting a fact does not change regardless of who deliver it

matty wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 11:12am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:54am: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:51am: Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:41am: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Thank you very much for yet again proving my point. You still don't understand it do you? Yes, I do. You have no evidence for your claims of a conspiracy between Mr Ashby and LNP members. As I've said previously matty. The ALP are really desperate now so they will base their argument on: (1) Facts they made up eg they said Abbott made a comment about Whyalla being wiped off the map when that comment came from a senior Union official (2) Ignoring facts eg saying Abbott is gone even though the polls sits at 57/43 (3) Based on assumed facts - they just assume it will be bad Too true, Maqqa. Their desperation knows no bounds. No proof, no evidence, just baseless smear and accusations. The blatantly sexual texts are there for all to see, yet the just deny or bypass these and talk about how "clear" it is that this was a set-up and conspiracy. Pathetic and desperate in the extreme. Also nice to see skippy, that great left-wing socialist make light of sexual harassment.

Matty, these leftards are saying that the evidence is James Ashby didn't first complain to the cops, or his lawyer, or his boss's boss (whoever that is).

Instead, he went to Mal Brough, the person who is contesting Mr Slipper's seat.

It's not criminal proof, they'd say it's evidence of collusion.

Now you and I both know that these leftards are just arguing for the sake of it. They want to see Mr Abbott get egg all over his face. They want to see him have an explosion in his face.

You see, there are a number people - some of them on this very board - who are so bored that they spend all day rehashing and reframing news on the internet to persue a political agenda.

They are extremely creative. Some of them even pretend to be different people so that it looks as if all these different people have the same idea. They pretend to be men, women, Greens members, uni students, single, married, straight, gay, transgender, you name it. 

I know it's hard to believe, but that's what people do. You probably don't know who you're talking to half the time - it could be anyone.

That's the lengths these leftards will go to, Matty. That's how desperate they've become. Is it any wonder they want you to believe that James Ashby was a Liberal plant?

These people are deplorable.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 12:15pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:12am: John Smith wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:07am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:13am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:06am: We need to remember all this from the left whenever a woman comes out and says she was sexually harassed. It can only be that if she asked for help and received it, then the helpers and victim are the actual perpetrators. And if they ALP gets any benefits out of it or are proven to be involved in assisting the victim then the allegations should be ignored It becomes a question of credibility  ... if the victim has proven to be a liar, why would you suddenly believe the claim just because it suits you politically? if you want people to believe you don't lie all the time ...... surely your  not suggesting the police have ignored the claims? facts are facts The sun will rise tomorrow is a fact regardless who makes the comment so now the abuse is a fact? I wasn't aware anybody had been found guilty of any crime .... or does the word facts mean something else to you?  how do you know it's a fact? is it because a proven liar says so? idiot I am highlighting a fact does not change regardless of who deliver it

well, so far the only facts that have come to light is the fact that the person making the claims has been found to have a tarnished credibilty at best ..   I'm aware that facts don't change, only peoples perceptions of them .... so your comment was in no way related to the topic being discussed? you were just making a general statement because you thought it sounded good?

matty wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 10:51am:

Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:41am: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Thank you very much for yet again proving my point. You still don't understand it do you? Yes, I do. You have no evidence for your claims of a conspiracy between Mr Ashby and LNP members.

No, you don't understand that anyone who made soooooo many repeated, baseless claims against others without proof has absolutely lost any right to even hint at asking for proof.

Sit on it and swivel. That's your proof.

Karnal wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 9:22am:

matty wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 11:11pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 10:54pm: matty wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:31pm: I agree with Maqqa and John, and I am STILL awaiting the evidence and/or proof that Mr Brough conspired with Mr Ashby to concoct such a a story. I watched the Bolt Report this morning, and he was on there. As he said, it's outrageous, and it shows a clear desperation all too akin to this divided and directionless government. Well before the complaints he was undermining Slipper and leaking information, His relationship with Pyne is I would think more relivant than Brough. Neither would be amoung the first few hundred million choices to turn to for advice of this nature. And then coincidentally he has the same Legal team as Cathy Jackson also free of charge the same guys who specialise in working for the Liberals and HR Nichols society. There is a point where claiming coincidence becomes rediculous. Who knows how many other staffers to whom Slipper has done this. There was a case of him having sex with a young male staffer in 2003, and pushing another male staffer against a wall at a later time, for rejecting his flirtations. Mal Brough is a local, and Mr Ashby probably thought to ask him what to do, as he was intimidated. Maqqa's post more than covers this. Mr Ashby is being represented by the lawyer who successfully represented the employee who accused the DJ boss (whose name currently evades me) a few years ago. I see nothing fantastical about this at all. Then we come to the texts - how can you tell me with a straight face, dna, that these do not imply sexual interest and intent on the part of Slipper? I know sexual harassment, from first-hand experience. Yes, Matty, but that doesn't count. We were only having a wank.

ROTFLMAO  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

matty wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 11:12am:

Too true, Maqqa. Their desperation knows no bounds. No proof, no evidence, just baseless smear and accusations. The blatantly sexual texts are there for all to see, yet the just deny or bypass these and talk about how "clear" it is that this was a set-up and conspiracy. Pathetic and desperate in the extreme. Also nice to see skippy, that great left-wing socialist make light of sexual harassment.

Hey matty, I've heard on the grapevine that Ashby sometimes attends Greens meetings at Ryde and Hornsby near the shops. Is that true? Is that why you support him?

Gist wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 1:12pm:

matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 11:12am: Too true, Maqqa. Their desperation knows no bounds. No proof, no evidence, just baseless smear and accusations. The blatantly sexual texts are there for all to see, yet the just deny or bypass these and talk about how "clear" it is that this was a set-up and conspiracy. Pathetic and desperate in the extreme. Also nice to see skippy, that great left-wing socialist make light of sexual harassment. Hey matty, I've heard on the grapevine that Ashby sometimes attends Greens meetings at Ryde and Hornsby near the shops. Is that true? Is that why you support him?

As I have said, I know about sexual harassment. One of my freinds suffered severely, so Mr Ashby has my empathy and sympathy. You lefties can go on making light of it all you want, it just demonstrates your blatant and staggering hypocrisy.

matty wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 1:12pm: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 11:12am: Too true, Maqqa. Their desperation knows no bounds. No proof, no evidence, just baseless smear and accusations. The blatantly sexual texts are there for all to see, yet the just deny or bypass these and talk about how "clear" it is that this was a set-up and conspiracy. Pathetic and desperate in the extreme. Also nice to see skippy, that great left-wing socialist make light of sexual harassment. Hey matty, I've heard on the grapevine that Ashby sometimes attends Greens meetings at Ryde and Hornsby near the shops. Is that true? Is that why you support him? As I have said, I know about sexual harassment. One of my freinds suffered severely, so Mr Ashby has my empathy and sympathy. You lefties can go on making light of it all you want, it just demonstrates your blatant and staggering hypocrisy.

Too true, Matty. May I ask what happened to your friend?

matty wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 11:12am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:54am: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:51am: Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:41am: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Thank you very much for yet again proving my point. You still don't understand it do you? Yes, I do. You have no evidence for your claims of a conspiracy between Mr Ashby and LNP members. As I've said previously matty. The ALP are really desperate now so they will base their argument on: (1) Facts they made up eg they said Abbott made a comment about Whyalla being wiped off the map when that comment came from a senior Union official (2) Ignoring facts eg saying Abbott is gone even though the polls sits at 57/43 (3) Based on assumed facts - they just assume it will be bad Too true, Maqqa. Their desperation knows no bounds. No proof, no evidence, just baseless smear and accusations. The blatantly sexual texts are there for all to see, yet the just deny or bypass these and talk about how "clear" it is that this was a set-up and conspiracy. Pathetic and desperate in the extreme. Also nice to see skippy, that great left-wing socialist make light of sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment is not funny,matty sox, you really need to leave your little friend alone.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 7:03pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:25pm: matty wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:16pm: I will again ask for the evidence/proof that the LNP had anything to do with Slipper, let alone Thomson. ....How about tghe fact Mal Brough was SUBPOENED to appear in court to answer questions about his involvement? If you were actually educated in Politics, you'd know Brough has plans to run in Slippers seat at the next election. Involvment? Are you suggesting that he was involved in helping Slipper to harass Ashby? Or Is the involvement in helping Ashby to gather the facts about the above harassment?

No the involvement is planting him into Slippers office and then getting him to make up claims of sexual harrassment in order to attempt to damage the government

matty wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:31pm:

I agree with Maqqa and John, and I am STILL awaiting the evidence and/or proof that Mr Brough conspired with Mr Ashby to concoct such a a story. I watched the Bolt Report this morning, and he was on there. As he said, it's outrageous, and it shows a clear desperation all too akin to this divided and directionless government.

You obviously haven't been following Aus Politics very much, we don't need evidence, we just need to say it often enough and it will become true.

skippy. wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 11:12am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:54am: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:51am: Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:41am: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Thank you very much for yet again proving my point. You still don't understand it do you? Yes, I do. You have no evidence for your claims of a conspiracy between Mr Ashby and LNP members. As I've said previously matty. The ALP are really desperate now so they will base their argument on: (1) Facts they made up eg they said Abbott made a comment about Whyalla being wiped off the map when that comment came from a senior Union official (2) Ignoring facts eg saying Abbott is gone even though the polls sits at 57/43 (3) Based on assumed facts - they just assume it will be bad Too true, Maqqa. Their desperation knows no bounds. No proof, no evidence, just baseless smear and accusations. The blatantly sexual texts are there for all to see, yet the just deny or bypass these and talk about how "clear" it is that this was a set-up and conspiracy. Pathetic and desperate in the extreme. Also nice to see skippy, that great left-wing socialist make light of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is not funny,matty sox, you really need to leave your little friend alone.

Skippy, sexual harrassment is a very serious issue. Sadly, Matty's fiance has changed gender. Again.

Angeleyes is now a man.

Gist wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 1:09pm:

matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:51am: Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:41am: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Thank you very much for yet again proving my point. You still don't understand it do you? Yes, I do. You have no evidence for your claims of a conspiracy between Mr Ashby and LNP members. No, you don't understand that anyone who made soooooo many repeated, baseless claims against others without proof has absolutely lost any right to even hint at asking for proof. Sit on it and swivel. That's your proof.

I missed this earlier. This is an absolutely and utter lie, and demonstrates the desperation that I would expect from a pathetic ALP supporter. No proof, no evidence, just smear and lying.

John Smith wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 9:33am:

funny how all the liberal monkeys try to justify it ..... the libs tried to set up Pauline Hanson with bull shite and sent an innocent woman to jail, they made up the whole Gretch thing, and now they are trying to set up Slipper .... I wouldn't be surprised if in another 12 months the truth will come out that they set up Thompson as well .... they don't deserve government .. they call everyone else liars but they are more deceitful than all the inmates at long bay jail combined .....

Having just read (painfully) the first 40 posts I'll have to pay this one. Spot On.

So I'll skip on now,  :) .

yeccch 

I mistakenly answered a Q from Matty on another topic recently, after saying a fewmths ago  I wouldn't.  OOPPS ::) I forgot.

So to Maqqa and others... I posted a couple of weeks ago that Brough admitted talking with Ashby, and advising him about these 'harassment' claims.

It is so clearly a put-up job,  like thomson,..... and the aim is so clearly to bring down a legally elected government, that I am amazed more lawful intervention has not occurred.

Lets wait and see eh??
Little ankle-biters like you are worth more than this reply.!!!! [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

ooooops again.... meant.... are NOT worth even this reply....... [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

Get it?    ;D

Jalane - that's just plain stupidity, calling this case, LET ALONE the Thomson case, a setup. Would you like to expand on how? And no, I am not a LIb supporter, although I don't support Labor or the Greens either. I just want the truth, and both Slipper and Thomson, especially the later, look as guilty as sin, to me.

I claim no inside info- no inside line---  I just comment on what I perceive from sifting thru news etc.

Nothing stupid about my 'suggestion' that both Thomson and Slipper are pawns in a nasty game.
Think you different???

Well think again.

I do not assume someone is guilty because of what I see or hear on media. ,,,  before any true investigation and resultant court action, OR NOT, as the case may be, is finalised.

Well I saw Mal Brough, on a QLD regional show, shortly AFTER the Ashby  story broke, agreeing that Ashby had come to him BEFORE the allegations were made.  YES that is true.!!! I shook my head at the time, wondering where all the media were.??

NOW....  wouldn't any HONEST pollie distance themselves???  well no Not mr Brough, who readily admitted advising Ashby to 'go public'.  !!

T'was an obvious attempt to head off condemnation of his role in this affair... and my views are supported by News tonight,  which is now clearly saying Mr Brough was seeking pre-selection from the Libs ...for Slippers seat.
I do not understand why you are so quick to condemn.

I'm sure you'd see things differently, if ANYTHING remotely like this, happened to you.

YOU say there's NOTHING FISHY IN DENMARK.???>?

matty wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 9:23pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 1:09pm: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:51am: Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:41am: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Thank you very much for yet again proving my point. You still don't understand it do you? Yes, I do. You have no evidence for your claims of a conspiracy between Mr Ashby and LNP members. No, you don't understand that anyone who made soooooo many repeated, baseless claims against others without proof has absolutely lost any right to even hint at asking for proof. Sit on it and swivel. That's your proof. I missed this earlier. This is an absolutely and utter lie, and demonstrates the desperation that I would expect from a pathetic ALP supporter. No proof, no evidence, just smear and lying.

No, this is absolutely and utter a lie, and demonstrates the desperation that I would expect from a pathetic coalition supporter. No proof, no evidence, just smear and lying.

Gist wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 10:08am:

matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 9:23pm: Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 1:09pm: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:51am: Gist wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:41am: matty wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:23am: Thank you very much for yet again proving my point. You still don't understand it do you? Yes, I do. You have no evidence for your claims of a conspiracy between Mr Ashby and LNP members. No, you don't understand that anyone who made soooooo many repeated, baseless claims against others without proof has absolutely lost any right to even hint at asking for proof. Sit on it and swivel. That's your proof. I missed this earlier. This is an absolutely and utter lie, and demonstrates the desperation that I would expect from a pathetic ALP supporter. No proof, no evidence, just smear and lying. No, this is absolutely and utter a lie, and demonstrates the desperation that I would expect from a pathetic coalition supporter. No proof, no evidence, just smear and lying.

Yet I have asked for proof of your claims many times, and have thus far benn given NOTHING.

matty wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 10:24am:

Yet I have asked for proof of your claims many times, and have thus far benn given NOTHING.

And many times have I explained it to you, yet you fail to understand. I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand.

Gist wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 11:09am:

matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 10:24am: Yet I have asked for proof of your claims many times, and have thus far benn given NOTHING. And many times have I explained it to you, yet you fail to understand. I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand.

No, you haven't.

Emma wrote on Jun 18^th, 2012 at 11:22pm:

NOW....  wouldn't any HONEST pollie distance themselves???  well no Not mr Brough, who readily admitted advising Ashby to 'go public'.  !!

I think you'll find Mr Brough is not a politician. He was a politician and would like another shot at it but he is currently not a politician.

matty wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 11:11am:

Gist wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:09am: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 10:24am: Yet I have asked for proof of your claims many times, and have thus far benn given NOTHING. And many times have I explained it to you, yet you fail to understand. I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand. No, you haven't.

When you PROVE the claims against Slipper are true, we may feel a need to prove our claims, but since you haven't proven anything you can't ask others to do what you yourself refuse to do ... now do you get it?

John Smith wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 1:23pm:

matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:11am: Gist wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:09am: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 10:24am: Yet I have asked for proof of your claims many times, and have thus far benn given NOTHING. And many times have I explained it to you, yet you fail to understand. I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand. No, you haven't. When you PROVE the claims against Slipper are true, we may feel a need to prove our claims, but since you haven't proven anything you can't ask others to do what you yourself refuse to do ... now do you get it?

I'm not making allegations though, and that is the difference. Gist and others are saying that it's a clear conspiracy, and have no evidence whatsoever. I am saying that the texts clearly demonstrate a sexual interest in Mr Ashby, which they do.

matty wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:23pm: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:11am: Gist wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:09am: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 10:24am: Yet I have asked for proof of your claims many times, and have thus far benn given NOTHING. And many times have I explained it to you, yet you fail to understand. I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand. No, you haven't. When you PROVE the claims against Slipper are true, we may feel a need to prove our claims, but since you haven't proven anything you can't ask others to do what you yourself refuse to do ... now do you get it? I'm not making allegations though, and that is the difference. Gist and others are saying that it's a clear conspiracy, and have no evidence whatsoever. I am saying that the texts clearly demonstrate a sexual interest in Mr Ashby, which they do.

Ummm no they don't

Trying reading them again without

1. Assuming he's guilty and
2. Your obvious fear of all things gay

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 1:35pm:

matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:24pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:23pm: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:11am: Gist wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:09am: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 10:24am: Yet I have asked for proof of your claims many times, and have thus far benn given NOTHING. And many times have I explained it to you, yet you fail to understand. I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand. No, you haven't. When you PROVE the claims against Slipper are true, we may feel a need to prove our claims, but since you haven't proven anything you can't ask others to do what you yourself refuse to do ... now do you get it? I'm not making allegations though, and that is the difference. Gist and others are saying that it's a clear conspiracy, and have no evidence whatsoever. I am saying that the texts clearly demonstrate a sexual interest in Mr Ashby, which they do. Ummm no they don't Trying reading them again without 1. Assuming he's guilty and 2. Your obvious fear of all things gay

They don't show a sexual interest? Have you even read them?

matty wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 1:40pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:35pm: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:24pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:23pm: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:11am: Gist wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:09am: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 10:24am: Yet I have asked for proof of your claims many times, and have thus far benn given NOTHING. And many times have I explained it to you, yet you fail to understand. I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand. No, you haven't. When you PROVE the claims against Slipper are true, we may feel a need to prove our claims, but since you haven't proven anything you can't ask others to do what you yourself refuse to do ... now do you get it? I'm not making allegations though, and that is the difference. Gist and others are saying that it's a clear conspiracy, and have no evidence whatsoever. I am saying that the texts clearly demonstrate a sexual interest in Mr Ashby, which they do. Ummm no they don't Trying reading them again without 1. Assuming he's guilty and 2. Your obvious fear of all things gay They don't show a sexual interest? Have you even read them?

That's not proof of anything. Where's your PROOF dimwit.

Gist wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 1:44pm:

matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:40pm: PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:35pm: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:24pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:23pm: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:11am: Gist wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:09am: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 10:24am: Yet I have asked for proof of your claims many times, and have thus far benn given NOTHING. And many times have I explained it to you, yet you fail to understand. I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand. No, you haven't. When you PROVE the claims against Slipper are true, we may feel a need to prove our claims, but since you haven't proven anything you can't ask others to do what you yourself refuse to do ... now do you get it? I'm not making allegations though, and that is the difference. Gist and others are saying that it's a clear conspiracy, and have no evidence whatsoever. I am saying that the texts clearly demonstrate a sexual interest in Mr Ashby, which they do. Ummm no they don't Trying reading them again without 1. Assuming he's guilty and 2. Your obvious fear of all things gay They don't show a sexual interest? Have you even read them? That's not proof of anything. Where's your PROOF dimwit.

The sexually explicit texts. You're really that thick, aren't you?

matty wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:23pm: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:11am: Gist wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:09am: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 10:24am: Yet I have asked for proof of your claims many times, and have thus far benn given NOTHING. And many times have I explained it to you, yet you fail to understand. I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand. No, you haven't. When you PROVE the claims against Slipper are true, we may feel a need to prove our claims, but since you haven't proven anything you can't ask others to do what you yourself refuse to do ... now do you get it? I'm not making allegations though, and that is the difference. Gist and others are saying that it's a clear conspiracy, and have no evidence whatsoever. I am saying that the texts clearly demonstrate a sexual interest in Mr Ashby, which they do.

but you are ... everytime you call lab or it's supporters names because they say that its a set up, your assuming that the allegations are true ... where is the proof if that is the case? It has as much possibility of being a set up as it has of anything else. .... I would tend to think that if there was any truth to the claims he would have been charged, and if there is no truth to it, then in all likely hood its a set up ... what was Ashby promised in exchange? he has already proven he can't be trusted ....  why would you believe soemthing just because he says so?

matty wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 1:40pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:35pm: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:24pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:23pm: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:11am: Gist wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:09am: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 10:24am: Yet I have asked for proof of your claims many times, and have thus far benn given NOTHING. And many times have I explained it to you, yet you fail to understand. I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand. No, you haven't. When you PROVE the claims against Slipper are true, we may feel a need to prove our claims, but since you haven't proven anything you can't ask others to do what you yourself refuse to do ... now do you get it? I'm not making allegations though, and that is the difference. Gist and others are saying that it's a clear conspiracy, and have no evidence whatsoever. I am saying that the texts clearly demonstrate a sexual interest in Mr Ashby, which they do. Ummm no they don't Trying reading them again without 1. Assuming he's guilty and 2. Your obvious fear of all things gay They don't show a sexual interest? Have you even read them?

They talk about "getting closer" = that's not sexual

They talk about "giving massages" = that's not sexual

Slipper talks about Ashby "getting rocks off" but he's clearing talking in reference to with someone else

Slipper obviously drinks a lot and appears to be somewhat odd but none of that adds up to sexual harassment

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 2:37pm:

matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:40pm: PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:35pm: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:24pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:23pm: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:11am: Gist wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:09am: matty wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 10:24am: Yet I have asked for proof of your claims many times, and have thus far benn given NOTHING. And many times have I explained it to you, yet you fail to understand. I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand. No, you haven't. When you PROVE the claims against Slipper are true, we may feel a need to prove our claims, but since you haven't proven anything you can't ask others to do what you yourself refuse to do ... now do you get it? I'm not making allegations though, and that is the difference. Gist and others are saying that it's a clear conspiracy, and have no evidence whatsoever. I am saying that the texts clearly demonstrate a sexual interest in Mr Ashby, which they do. Ummm no they don't Trying reading them again without 1. Assuming he's guilty and 2. Your obvious fear of all things gay They don't show a sexual interest? Have you even read them? They talk about "getting closer" = that's not sexual They talk about "giving massages" = that's not sexual Slipper talks about Ashby "getting rocks off" but he's clearing talking in reference to with someone else Slipper obviously drinks a lot and appears to be somewhat odd but none of that adds up to sexual harassment

And where is Ashby's side of the conversation? I've never seen them. How do I know that these texts aren't bits of a perfectly normal conversation that's been taken completely out of context? Why do we only see one side of the conversation?

These aren't PROOF matty, these are your masturbationary fantasies. Stop fiddling with your dick and give us PROOF.