http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/holes-appear-in-tony-abbotts-uni-life/story-fndor8bb-1226602057790

More like a hole in the evidence

"I didnt see anything, but she told me, so it must be true"

In court, that is heresay. In real life, we call that activist BS in the history of this case.

Does anyone really care what Abbott may or may not have done in 1977.
I would have thought what he does in 2013 would be more relevant.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 5:38pm:

More like a hole in the evidence "I didnt see anything, but she told me, so it must be true" In court, that is heresay. In real life, we call that activist BS in the history of this case.

No.  It is an eye witness account.  Learn how to read:

"I saw Abbott raise his elbow above his head and his fist was clenched and then he drove his fist down.



He saw it.

You are confusing this witness with another witness to the event, Sydney barrister.  Mr Patch did not see the actual punch, but he was a witness to the event

''The law (and commonsense) recognise that when victims complain immediately it is very likely they are telling the truth. It is the spontaneity of the complaint, and the inability to fabricate a false allegation in a short period of time, which give it the ring of truth.''
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/punch-witness-comes-forward-with-tales-of-anarchy-in-the-src-20120912-25sxx.html#ixzz2OA1cr8Zk

And then there is the 3rd witness to the event.  Ms Ramjan.  Are you calling her a liar?  I wouldn't if I were you - or you will end up like Michael Kroger:

BARBARA RAMJAN, the woman who accused Opposition Leader Tony Abbott of intimidating her physically at Sydney University, is suing the Victorian Liberal Party powerbroker, Michael Kroger, and The Australian newspaper, over comments during the recent fallout from the saga.
The defamation action, lodged in the NSW Supreme Court on Monday, has the potential to reopen the debate over the alleged wall-punching incident.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-accuser-sues-liberal-party-powerbroker-20121024-285xc.html#ixzz2OA1wvBVG


3 witnesses to the event.

All against Abbott's word.  Abbott's changing word.  First he said he couldn't remember.  Then he could remember and he says he didn't do it.  A man who has told us not to believe everything he says.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Does anyone really care what Abbott may or may not have done in 1977. I would have thought what he does in 2013 would be more relevant.

Throwing punches at women is a bad look for a bloke who already has a reputation as being sexist.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:28pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:25pm: Does anyone really care what Abbott may or may not have done in 1977. I would have thought what he does in 2013 would be more relevant. Throwing punches at women is a bad look for a bloke who already has a reputation as being sexist.

His 'reputation as being sexist' comes out of Juliars mouth only.
And once again, 1977???
Say no more.
This says more about how pathetic Labor are than about Abbott.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:27pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 5:38pm: More like a hole in the evidence "I didnt see anything, but she told me, so it must be true" In court, that is heresay. In real life, we call that activist BS in the history of this case. No.  It is an eye witness account.  Learn how to read: "I saw Abbott raise his elbow above his head and his fist was clenched and then he drove his fist down. He saw it. You are confusing this witness with another witness to the event, Sydney barrister.  Mr Patch did not see the actual punch, but he was a witness to the event ''The law (and commonsense) recognise that when victims complain immediately it is very likely they are telling the truth. It is the spontaneity of the complaint, and the inability to fabricate a false allegation in a short period of time, which give it the ring of truth.'' http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/punch-witness-comes-forward-with-tales-of-anarchy-in-the-src-20120912-25sxx.html#ixzz2OA1cr8Zk And then there is the 3rd witness to the event.  Ms Ramjan.  Are you calling her a liar?  I wouldn't if I were you - or you will end up like Michael Kroger: BARBARA RAMJAN, the woman who accused Opposition Leader Tony Abbott of intimidating her physically at Sydney University, is suing the Victorian Liberal Party powerbroker, Michael Kroger, and The Australian newspaper, over comments during the recent fallout from the saga. The defamation action, lodged in the NSW Supreme Court on Monday, has the potential to reopen the debate over the alleged wall-punching incident. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-accuser-sues-liberal-party-powerbroker-20121024-285xc.html#ixzz2OA1wvBVG 3 witnesses to the event. All against Abbott's word.  Abbott's changing word.  First he said he couldn't remember.  Then he could remember and he says he didn't do it.  A man who has told us not to believe everything he says.

Yeh. I saw nothing that can be construde as a crime.

Wow, thanks for coming mate. We will call you.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:28pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:25pm: Does anyone really care what Abbott may or may not have done in 1977. I would have thought what he does in 2013 would be more relevant. Throwing punches at women is a bad look for a bloke who already has a reputation as being sexist.

Who did that?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:53pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:28pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:25pm: Does anyone really care what Abbott may or may not have done in 1977. I would have thought what he does in 2013 would be more relevant. Throwing punches at women is a bad look for a bloke who already has a reputation as being sexist. His 'reputation as being sexist' comes out of Juliars mouth only. And once again, 1977??? Say no more. This says more about how pathetic Labor are than about Abbott.

No, it’s about a macho, boxing, budgie-smuggling ex-priest’s appeal to female voters.

Abbott may eventually win them over - who knows? Up until now, he’s popular to the monarchist and Catholic vote. That’s about it.

Personally, I live in hope. I realize I’m in the minority though.

And I have very little evidence to base my hope on.

This business of starting new Threads where there is an existing one on exactly the same topic, really sh1ts me off.

Why do you do it?

:D

What a  crock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mentality of a liberal monkey

Abbott is accused of punching a wall  .. with three independent witnesses ... libs response, it's all lies, you cannot prove it, he wasn't charges


Gillard is accused of stealing union funds .... we are told by someone who knew someone who had a dog that heard someone say something ... no real proof despite months of waiting for Pickering or Smith to provide some ... libs response .. guilty, no need for a  trial, hang her, jail her ...

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:58pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:28pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:25pm: Does anyone really care what Abbott may or may not have done in 1977. I would have thought what he does in 2013 would be more relevant. Throwing punches at women is a bad look for a bloke who already has a reputation as being sexist. Who did that?

Tony Abbot.

There were 3 witnesses to the event.
1 who saw him throw the punch
1 who saw the victim moments afterward.
And, of course - the victim.

3 witnesses against the word of one bloke who has a history that includes a charge of indecent assault.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:57pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:27pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 5:38pm: More like a hole in the evidence "I didnt see anything, but she told me, so it must be true" In court, that is heresay. In real life, we call that activist BS in the history of this case. No.  It is an eye witness account.  Learn how to read: "I saw Abbott raise his elbow above his head and his fist was clenched and then he drove his fist down. He saw it. You are confusing this witness with another witness to the event, Sydney barrister.  Mr Patch did not see the actual punch, but he was a witness to the event ''The law (and commonsense) recognise that when victims complain immediately it is very likely they are telling the truth. It is the spontaneity of the complaint, and the inability to fabricate a false allegation in a short period of time, which give it the ring of truth.'' http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/punch-witness-comes-forward-with-tales-of-anarchy-in-the-src-20120912-25sxx.html#ixzz2OA1cr8Zk And then there is the 3rd witness to the event.  Ms Ramjan.  Are you calling her a liar?  I wouldn't if I were you - or you will end up like Michael Kroger: BARBARA RAMJAN, the woman who accused Opposition Leader Tony Abbott of intimidating her physically at Sydney University, is suing the Victorian Liberal Party powerbroker, Michael Kroger, and The Australian newspaper, over comments during the recent fallout from the saga. The defamation action, lodged in the NSW Supreme Court on Monday, has the potential to reopen the debate over the alleged wall-punching incident. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-accuser-sues-liberal-party-powerbroker-20121024-285xc.html#ixzz2OA1wvBVG 3 witnesses to the event. All against Abbott's word.  Abbott's changing word.  First he said he couldn't remember.  Then he could remember and he says he didn't do it.  A man who has told us not to believe everything he says. Yeh. I saw nothing that can be construde as a crime. Wow, thanks for coming mate. We will call you.

Tellling lies again?

One witness has claimed he saw something which  can certainly be construde as a crime.

He saw:

"I saw Abbott raise his elbow above his head and his fist was clenched and then he drove his fist down.



That is assault.


And another witness saw the effects of the assault shortly afterwards.

''The law (and commonsense) recognise that when victims complain immediately it is very likely they are telling the truth. It is the spontaneity of the complaint, and the inability to fabricate a false allegation in a short period of time, which give it the ring of truth.''
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/punch-witness-comes-forward-with-tales-of-anarchy-in-the-src-20120912-25sxx.html#ixzz2OA1cr8Zk

The 3rd witness - Ms Ramjan - saw the whole thing.  Are you calling her a liar?


(and No - I don't know why this is all in italics)

I can’t believe I’m actually saying this, but what did he actually do?

Punched a wall, right? In a rather intimidating way, sure, but he punched a wall.

Who exactly is the victim? The wall, or... ?

Karnal wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:00pm:

I can’t believe I’m actually saying this, but what did he actually do? Punched a wall, right? In a rather intimidating way, sure, but he punched a wall. Who exactly is the victim? The wall, or... ?

Find your wife, make her really upset, tower over her and put your face in her face and punch the wall next to her head - then get back to us.  OK?

John Smith wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 7:32pm:

Mentality of a liberal monkey Abbott is accused of punching a wall  .. with three independent witnesses ... libs response, it's all lies, you cannot prove it, he wasn't charges Gillard is accused of stealing union funds .... we are told by someone who knew someone who had a dog that heard someone say something ... no real proof despite months of waiting for Pickering or Smith to provide some ... libs response .. guilty, no need for a  trial, hang her, jail her ...

Difference. Court threw it out. No crime was committed. Get it. They had their activist go and the courts said there was no crime committed.

Gillard. Well she has music to face.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 7:53pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:58pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:28pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:25pm: Does anyone really care what Abbott may or may not have done in 1977. I would have thought what he does in 2013 would be more relevant. Throwing punches at women is a bad look for a bloke who already has a reputation as being sexist. Who did that? Tony Abbot. There were 3 witnesses to the event. 1 who saw him throw the punch 1 who saw the victim moments afterward. And, of course - the victim. 3 witnesses against the word of one bloke who has a history that includes a charge of indecent assault.

Same with you. The court threw it out because there was no crime committed. No evidence to suggest otherwise.

As for the 3rd person who says he did not see a crime committed but she says there was, is just heresay and pathetic evidence.

Lefty be desperate.

You’re just as bad. Abbott did it, as everybody knows.

Abbott was a rugby-playing extremist conservative dope at Sydney Uni - a complete and utter mysogenist. I’d never vote for him.

But it was the 1970s. We’ve all moved on. The world has moved on.

Let’s hope so, anyway. Abbott’s the next PM. Sadly, we have no choice in this.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:09pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 7:53pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:58pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:28pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:25pm: Does anyone really care what Abbott may or may not have done in 1977. I would have thought what he does in 2013 would be more relevant. Throwing punches at women is a bad look for a bloke who already has a reputation as being sexist. Who did that? Tony Abbot. There were 3 witnesses to the event. 1 who saw him throw the punch 1 who saw the victim moments afterward. And, of course - the victim. 3 witnesses against the word of one bloke who has a history that includes a charge of indecent assault. Same with you. The court threw it out because there was no crime committed. No evidence to suggest otherwise. As for the 3rd person who says he did not see a crime committed but she says there was, is just heresay and pathetic evidence. Lefty be desperate.

WTF?!?!?

What court "threw it out"?!?!?

You can't help telling lies can you!?!?


It never went to court you idiot.

You are confusing it with Abbott's indecent assault case.  A completely different incident
Poor old Tony could not keep his hands to himself in those days, could he!

But - there were 3 witnesses to him throwing a punch towards a woman's head.

1 witness saw the immediat effect of the assault.
I witness saw the assault occur - an eye witness.
And the 3rd witness - Ms Ramjan  - was the victim.


3 witnesses against the word of one bloke who has a history that includes a charge of indecent assault.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 7:32pm: Mentality of a liberal monkey Abbott is accused of punching a wall  .. with three independent witnesses ... libs response, it's all lies, you cannot prove it, he wasn't charges Gillard is accused of stealing union funds .... we are told by someone who knew someone who had a dog that heard someone say something ... no real proof despite months of waiting for Pickering or Smith to provide some ... libs response .. guilty, no need for a  trial, hang her, jail her ... Difference. Court threw it out. No crime was committed. Get it. They had their activist go and the courts said there was no crime committed. Gillard. Well she has music to face.

No court threw it out idiot.

A court did dismiss his indecent assault charge.

THis is an entirely separate crime we are talking about.

An assault that had 3 witnesses.

Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 7:21pm:

This business of starting new Threads where there is an existing one on exactly the same topic, really sh1ts me off. Why do you do it? :D

Why single me out??????

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:23pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:07pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 7:32pm: Mentality of a liberal monkey Abbott is accused of punching a wall  .. with three independent witnesses ... libs response, it's all lies, you cannot prove it, he wasn't charges Gillard is accused of stealing union funds .... we are told by someone who knew someone who had a dog that heard someone say something ... no real proof despite months of waiting for Pickering or Smith to provide some ... libs response .. guilty, no need for a  trial, hang her, jail her ... Difference. Court threw it out. No crime was committed. Get it. They had their activist go and the courts said there was no crime committed. Gillard. Well she has music to face. No court threw it out idiot. A court did dismiss his indecent assault charge. THis is an entirely separate crime we are talking about. An assault that had 3 witnesses.

So no crime at all was committed then, not even one where a court had to throw it out.

Gee I wish I was a little closer than what you just told me. lol Now it is looking even more pathetic for you.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 7:32pm: Mentality of a liberal monkey Abbott is accused of punching a wall  .. with three independent witnesses ... libs response, it's all lies, you cannot prove it, he wasn't charges Gillard is accused of stealing union funds .... we are told by someone who knew someone who had a dog that heard someone say something ... no real proof despite months of waiting for Pickering or Smith to provide some ... libs response .. guilty, no need for a  trial, hang her, jail her ... Difference. Court threw it out. No crime was committed. Get it. They had their activist go and the courts said there was no crime committed. Gillard. Well she has music to face.

what court?  Certainly not a court of law ... are you confusing it with a tennis court?

as far as Gillard, she's had the same music to face for over 17yr and no one has been able to show nay evidence ... when will you stop? another 17yrs? 70yrs?

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 8:31pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:23pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:07pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 7:32pm: Mentality of a liberal monkey Abbott is accused of punching a wall  .. with three independent witnesses ... libs response, it's all lies, you cannot prove it, he wasn't charges Gillard is accused of stealing union funds .... we are told by someone who knew someone who had a dog that heard someone say something ... no real proof despite months of waiting for Pickering or Smith to provide some ... libs response .. guilty, no need for a  trial, hang her, jail her ... Difference. Court threw it out. No crime was committed. Get it. They had their activist go and the courts said there was no crime committed. Gillard. Well she has music to face. No court threw it out idiot. A court did dismiss his indecent assault charge. THis is an entirely separate crime we are talking about. An assault that had 3 witnesses. So no crime at all was committed then, not even one where a court had to throw it out. Gee I wish I was a little closer than what you just told me. lol Now it is looking even more pathetic for you.

You have no problems voting for a bloke that assaults women?  Good for you.


THere are 3 witnesses to a bloke who wants to be PM committing assault.

And the bloke who was witnessed committing the assault denies it ever happened.

We know he is a sexist.  And it appears he has also assaulted women in the past.
Is he a good bloke to be a PM?

The Libs support this guy?????

Dnarever wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 9:26pm:

The Libs support this guy?????

It is not their fault.  If they don't - he may punch them.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 9:19pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:31pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:23pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:07pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 7:32pm: Mentality of a liberal monkey Abbott is accused of punching a wall  .. with three independent witnesses ... libs response, it's all lies, you cannot prove it, he wasn't charges Gillard is accused of stealing union funds .... we are told by someone who knew someone who had a dog that heard someone say something ... no real proof despite months of waiting for Pickering or Smith to provide some ... libs response .. guilty, no need for a  trial, hang her, jail her ... Difference. Court threw it out. No crime was committed. Get it. They had their activist go and the courts said there was no crime committed. Gillard. Well she has music to face. No court threw it out idiot. A court did dismiss his indecent assault charge. THis is an entirely separate crime we are talking about. An assault that had 3 witnesses. So no crime at all was committed then, not even one where a court had to throw it out. Gee I wish I was a little closer than what you just told me. lol Now it is looking even more pathetic for you. You have no problems voting for a bloke that assaults women?  Good for you. THere are 3 witnesses to a bloke who wants to be PM committing assault. And the bloke who was witnessed committing the assault denies it ever happened. We know he is a sexist.  And it appears he has also assaulted women in the past. Is he a good bloke to be a PM?

No crime committed. Sure. If a crime were committed, there would have been something done about it. Otherwise it could be a bunch of lefties hating on a righty. Who knows. I am certainly not going to bother with students fighting each other in an activist environment. Knock yourselves out kiddies, but if you get hurt, be sure to go to the police or ill call BS.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 9:36pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:31pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:23pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:07pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 7:32pm: Mentality of a liberal monkey Abbott is accused of punching a wall  .. with three independent witnesses ... libs response, it's all lies, you cannot prove it, he wasn't charges Gillard is accused of stealing union funds .... we are told by someone who knew someone who had a dog that heard someone say something ... no real proof despite months of waiting for Pickering or Smith to provide some ... libs response .. guilty, no need for a  trial, hang her, jail her ... Difference. Court threw it out. No crime was committed. Get it. They had their activist go and the courts said there was no crime committed. Gillard. Well she has music to face. No court threw it out idiot. A court did dismiss his indecent assault charge. THis is an entirely separate crime we are talking about. An assault that had 3 witnesses. So no crime at all was committed then, not even one where a court had to throw it out. Gee I wish I was a little closer than what you just told me. lol Now it is looking even more pathetic for you. You have no problems voting for a bloke that assaults women?  Good for you. THere are 3 witnesses to a bloke who wants to be PM committing assault. And the bloke who was witnessed committing the assault denies it ever happened. We know he is a sexist.  And it appears he has also assaulted women in the past. Is he a good bloke to be a PM? No crime committed. Sure. If a crime were committed, there would have been something done about it. Otherwise it could be a bunch of lefties hating on a righty. Who knows. I am certainly not going to bother with students fighting each other in an activist environment. Knock yourselves out kiddies, but if you get hurt, be sure to go to the police or ill call BS.

Since when is assault not a crime? moron

John Smith wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 9:52pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:36pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:31pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:23pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:07pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 7:32pm: Mentality of a liberal monkey Abbott is accused of punching a wall  .. with three independent witnesses ... libs response, it's all lies, you cannot prove it, he wasn't charges Gillard is accused of stealing union funds .... we are told by someone who knew someone who had a dog that heard someone say something ... no real proof despite months of waiting for Pickering or Smith to provide some ... libs response .. guilty, no need for a  trial, hang her, jail her ... Difference. Court threw it out. No crime was committed. Get it. They had their activist go and the courts said there was no crime committed. Gillard. Well she has music to face. No court threw it out idiot. A court did dismiss his indecent assault charge. THis is an entirely separate crime we are talking about. An assault that had 3 witnesses. So no crime at all was committed then, not even one where a court had to throw it out. Gee I wish I was a little closer than what you just told me. lol Now it is looking even more pathetic for you. You have no problems voting for a bloke that assaults women?  Good for you. THere are 3 witnesses to a bloke who wants to be PM committing assault. And the bloke who was witnessed committing the assault denies it ever happened. We know he is a sexist.  And it appears he has also assaulted women in the past. Is he a good bloke to be a PM? No crime committed. Sure. If a crime were committed, there would have been something done about it. Otherwise it could be a bunch of lefties hating on a righty. Who knows. I am certainly not going to bother with students fighting each other in an activist environment. Knock yourselves out kiddies, but if you get hurt, be sure to go to the police or ill call BS. Since when is assault not a crime? moron

Since when is no assault, an assult you moron

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:52pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:36pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:31pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:23pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:07pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 7:32pm: Mentality of a liberal monkey Abbott is accused of punching a wall  .. with three independent witnesses ... libs response, it's all lies, you cannot prove it, he wasn't charges Gillard is accused of stealing union funds .... we are told by someone who knew someone who had a dog that heard someone say something ... no real proof despite months of waiting for Pickering or Smith to provide some ... libs response .. guilty, no need for a  trial, hang her, jail her ... Difference. Court threw it out. No crime was committed. Get it. They had their activist go and the courts said there was no crime committed. Gillard. Well she has music to face. No court threw it out idiot. A court did dismiss his indecent assault charge. THis is an entirely separate crime we are talking about. An assault that had 3 witnesses. So no crime at all was committed then, not even one where a court had to throw it out. Gee I wish I was a little closer than what you just told me. lol Now it is looking even more pathetic for you. You have no problems voting for a bloke that assaults women?  Good for you. THere are 3 witnesses to a bloke who wants to be PM committing assault. And the bloke who was witnessed committing the assault denies it ever happened. We know he is a sexist.  And it appears he has also assaulted women in the past. Is he a good bloke to be a PM? No crime committed. Sure. If a crime were committed, there would have been something done about it. Otherwise it could be a bunch of lefties hating on a righty. Who knows. I am certainly not going to bother with students fighting each other in an activist environment. Knock yourselves out kiddies, but if you get hurt, be sure to go to the police or ill call BS. Since when is assault not a crime? moron Since when is no assault, an assult you moron

punching the wall to scare or intimidate someone is assault  ... I dare you to try and argue that it isn't and prove to everyone what a real moron you are.

John Smith wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:06pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:03pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:52pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:36pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:31pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:23pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 8:07pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 7:32pm: Mentality of a liberal monkey Abbott is accused of punching a wall  .. with three independent witnesses ... libs response, it's all lies, you cannot prove it, he wasn't charges Gillard is accused of stealing union funds .... we are told by someone who knew someone who had a dog that heard someone say something ... no real proof despite months of waiting for Pickering or Smith to provide some ... libs response .. guilty, no need for a  trial, hang her, jail her ... Difference. Court threw it out. No crime was committed. Get it. They had their activist go and the courts said there was no crime committed. Gillard. Well she has music to face. No court threw it out idiot. A court did dismiss his indecent assault charge. THis is an entirely separate crime we are talking about. An assault that had 3 witnesses. So no crime at all was committed then, not even one where a court had to throw it out. Gee I wish I was a little closer than what you just told me. lol Now it is looking even more pathetic for you. You have no problems voting for a bloke that assaults women?  Good for you. THere are 3 witnesses to a bloke who wants to be PM committing assault. And the bloke who was witnessed committing the assault denies it ever happened. We know he is a sexist.  And it appears he has also assaulted women in the past. Is he a good bloke to be a PM? No crime committed. Sure. If a crime were committed, there would have been something done about it. Otherwise it could be a bunch of lefties hating on a righty. Who knows. I am certainly not going to bother with students fighting each other in an activist environment. Knock yourselves out kiddies, but if you get hurt, be sure to go to the police or ill call BS. Since when is assault not a crime? moron Since when is no assault, an assult you moron punching the wall to scare or intimidate someone is assault  ... I dare you to try and argue that it isn't and prove to everyone what a real moron you are.

Nothing of the sort has been proven to any degree.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:25pm:

Nothing of the sort has been proven to any degree.

There were (at least) 3 witnesses to the assault.

1 did not see the punch, but saw the immediate impact of it
1 saw the punch being thrown
1 was the victim herself

3 witnesses to assault.  Against the word of a man who has admitted he cannot be trusted:

"I know politicians are going to be judged on everything they say but sometimes in the heat of discussion you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark," he said.

3 witnesses to assault.  Against the word of a man who has also been charged with indecent assault.


You really are very trusting, aren't you.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:42pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:25pm: Nothing of the sort has been proven to any degree. There were (at least) 3 witnesses to the assault. 1 did not see the punch, but saw the immediate impact of it 1 saw the punch being thrown 1 was the victim herself 3 witnesses to assault.  Against the word of a man who has admitted he cannot be trusted: "I know politicians are going to be judged on everything they say but sometimes in the heat of discussion you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark," he said. 3 witnesses to assault.  Against the word of a man who has also been charged with indecent assault. You really are very trusting, aren't you.

Yeh still not proven. There could be any number of things that went on and they were certainly not the only people in the room.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:46pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:42pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:25pm: Nothing of the sort has been proven to any degree. There were (at least) 3 witnesses to the assault. 1 did not see the punch, but saw the immediate impact of it 1 saw the punch being thrown 1 was the victim herself 3 witnesses to assault.  Against the word of a man who has admitted he cannot be trusted: "I know politicians are going to be judged on everything they say but sometimes in the heat of discussion you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark," he said. 3 witnesses to assault.  Against the word of a man who has also been charged with indecent assault. You really are very trusting, aren't you. Yeh still not proven. There could be any number of things that went on and they were certainly not the only people in the room.

Are you saying Ms Ramjan is a liar?

Are you saying she has lied about the assault?

Shall I contact her solicitors for you?

Would you like to be part of the action she is taking against Michael Kroger?

Even your hero Alan Jones does not agree with you:

Even shock-jock Alan Jones decided it was time to cover his butt on this one, making this on-air apology:

“Ramjan is a person of high distinction having been awarded a D. Phil from Sydney Uni and she is married to a Supreme Court judge. Ramjan has spent years avoiding the limelight and glare of politics, choosing not to get involved after her student activity ceased. I was not aware of this and I accept now that the claim she was a serial liar is not factual.”
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/the-animal-in-tony-abbott/

Are you saying both Ms Ramjan AND Alan Jones are liars?!?!?


Are you seriously telling us you think the 3 witnesses to this assault are all liars?
And Tony Abbott is telling the truth?!?!?

Seriously?!?!?!?!

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Does anyone really care what Abbott may or may not have done in 1977. I would have thought what he does in 2013 would be more relevant.

No that doesn't matter either. it's what he's likely to do in 2014 and beyond that's a worry.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:59pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:46pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:42pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:25pm: Nothing of the sort has been proven to any degree. There were (at least) 3 witnesses to the assault. 1 did not see the punch, but saw the immediate impact of it 1 saw the punch being thrown 1 was the victim herself 3 witnesses to assault.  Against the word of a man who has admitted he cannot be trusted: "I know politicians are going to be judged on everything they say but sometimes in the heat of discussion you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark," he said. 3 witnesses to assault.  Against the word of a man who has also been charged with indecent assault. You really are very trusting, aren't you. Yeh still not proven. There could be any number of things that went on and they were certainly not the only people in the room. Are you saying Ms Ramjan is a liar? Are you saying she has lied about the assault? Shall I contact her solicitors for you? Would you like to be part of the action she is taking against Michael Kroger? Even your hero Alan Jones does not agree with you: Even shock-jock Alan Jones decided it was time to cover his butt on this one, making this on-air apology: “Ramjan is a person of high distinction having been awarded a D. Phil from Sydney Uni and she is married to a Supreme Court judge. Ramjan has spent years avoiding the limelight and glare of politics, choosing not to get involved after her student activity ceased. I was not aware of this and I accept now that the claim she was a serial liar is not factual.” http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/the-animal-in-tony-abbott/ Are you saying both Ms Ramjan AND Alan Jones are liars?!?!? Are you seriously telling us you think the 3 witnesses to this assault are all liars? And Tony Abbott is telling the truth?!?!? Seriously?!?!?!?!

Seriously. It wouldnt be the first time in history for someone to lie to manipulate their standing in life, be it Abbott or these people.

I am saying it is not proven and could be explained in many different ways. It has to be proven. They were not the only people in the room were they.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 12:03am:

I am saying it is not proven and could be explained in many different ways. It has to be proven. They were not the only people in the room were they.

You are saying that Ms Ramjan is a liar.

Is that what you are saying?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 12:07am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 12:03am: I am saying it is not proven and could be explained in many different ways. It has to be proven. They were not the only people in the room were they. You are saying that Ms Ramjan is a liar. Is that what you are saying?

You dont read so well or comprehend do you. It is not up to anyone to believe anyone. It is up to someone to prove something.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 12:13am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 12:07am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 12:03am: I am saying it is not proven and could be explained in many different ways. It has to be proven. They were not the only people in the room were they. You are saying that Ms Ramjan is a liar. Is that what you are saying? You dont read so well or comprehend do you. It is not up to anyone to believe anyone. It is up to someone to prove something.

And you have no comprehension skills at all .... for the story to be false you need to prove that all 3 witnesses are lying ... can you do that?

John Smith wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 10:26am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 12:13am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 12:07am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 12:03am: I am saying it is not proven and could be explained in many different ways. It has to be proven. They were not the only people in the room were they. You are saying that Ms Ramjan is a liar. Is that what you are saying? You dont read so well or comprehend do you. It is not up to anyone to believe anyone. It is up to someone to prove something. And you have no comprehension skills at all .... for the story to be false you need to prove that all 3 witnesses are lying ... can you do that?

Hey, even if you are starting to believe our justice system works that way (truly stupid), you were the one that said that you dont have to prove anything to me. So likewise.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:42pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:25pm: Nothing of the sort has been proven to any degree. There were (at least) 3 witnesses to the assault. 1 did not see the punch, but saw the immediate impact of it 1 saw the punch being thrown 1 was the victim herself 3 witnesses to assault.  Against the word of a man who has admitted he cannot be trusted: "I know politicians are going to be judged on everything they say but sometimes in the heat of discussion you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark," he said. 3 witnesses to assault.  Against the word of a man who has also been charged with indecent assault. You really are very trusting, aren't you.

No they aren't they all know he did it but are just as dishonest as he is.

They are all relying on implausible deniability.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 12:18pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 10:26am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 12:13am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 12:07am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 12:03am: I am saying it is not proven and could be explained in many different ways. It has to be proven. They were not the only people in the room were they. You are saying that Ms Ramjan is a liar. Is that what you are saying? You dont read so well or comprehend do you. It is not up to anyone to believe anyone. It is up to someone to prove something. And you have no comprehension skills at all .... for the story to be false you need to prove that all 3 witnesses are lying ... can you do that? Hey, even if you are starting to believe our justice system works that way (truly stupid), you were the one that said that you dont have to prove anything to me. So likewise.

of course the justice system works that way ..

three independant witnesses stories all match up and you had better prove they are lying or your are going to jail ... how do you think it works? You think they simply refer to Pickering?

Saw a mate drop this gin once. She was asking everyone for money/smokes etc (the usual)

He told her to bugger off.

She was blind drunk and came at him ranting and raving, swinging her arms about.

POP, right on the beak.

THAT was a beautiful assault.

;D ;D ;D

FriYAY wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 2:07pm:

Saw a mate drop this gin once. She was asking everyone for money/smokes etc (the usual) He told her to bugger off. She was blind drunk and came at him ranting and raving, swinging her arms about. POP, right on the beak. THAT was a beautiful assault. ;D ;D ;D

I can see why love Tony Abbott so much.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 2:07pm: Saw a mate drop this gin once. She was asking everyone for money/smokes etc (the usual) He told her to bugger off. She was blind drunk and came at him ranting and raving, swinging her arms about. POP, right on the beak. THAT was a beautiful assault. ;D ;D ;D I can see why you love Tony Abbott so much.

But I don’t.

Nevertheless Joan, if a drunk gin comes at you ranting and raving and swinging her arms - trust me here - a nice straight jab to the beak will shorten her up for sure.

You’re welcome.

;)