Ben Fordham confirms it on national radio here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1L-Y0Ydt2I

In twenty minutes will be the interview gillard doesnt want people to hear.

Michael smith interviewing bob kernohan live on 2gb all about the AWU Scandal.

20 minutes live here.

Not to be missed.

http://www.2gb.com/listen-live

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

LOL @ the loony fringe. ;D ;D ;D

---

Thanks for the heads up on these labor crooks

Ben Fordham

2GB


http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Cartoon-Character-Mutley-Laughing.gif

look, found a picture of laborarecorrupt

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/crazy-cuckoo-man-28964603.jpg

She isn't in parliament anymore - shouldn't they focus on running the country?

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 2:20pm:

She isn't in parliament anymore - shouldn't they focus on running the country?

Who's they ?  ;)

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 2:20pm:

She isn't in parliament anymore - shouldn't they focus on running the country?

Yeh how are labor to keep this corruption up if you focus on their corrupt

GEEEEZE !

Not THIS old TURKEY again ?



http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif

Yeah, didn't he give this crap an airing about 2 months ago?

Oh & that reminds me, didn't Red Barron also insinuate that a major Gillard scandal was going to break???


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

F*cken Nutters

Former AWU President Bob Kernohan says he was offered a seat in Parliament if he "kept (his) mouth shut"

He got bashed when he refused

So what was said?

Stratos wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:15pm:

So what was said?

Oh the usual rehased bull crap.  See, Michael needs to continue this as its the only way he makes money. Loonyville is his bread and butter and they get caught, hook line and sinker, each and every time.

So sad when people are this dumb :(

Stratos wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:15pm:

So what was said?

Compelling interview. A must listen. Bring on justice.

wait for the pod cast to be put up.

labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:24pm:

Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:15pm: So what was said? Compelling interview. A must listen. Bring on justice. wait for the pod cast to be put up.

Any evidence?

labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:24pm:

Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:15pm: So what was said? Compelling interview. A must listen. Bring on justice. wait for the pod cast to be put up.

Were you on the edge of your seat the whole time? 

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 2:24pm:

GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif

Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'(

labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:14pm:

Former AWU President Bob Kernohan says he was offered a seat in Parliament if he "kept (his) mouth shut" He got bashed when he refused

lefties think thats FUNNY...LOLOLOLOL.. cant you hear them cackling  as they run for cover..

.Kernohan was one of them remember?..but just a shade too HONEST...they dont like that...they prefer the Wilsons..and the ones they can buy off like  Ian Cambridge....who we all know and he admits himself he called for a Royal into the AWU when he was Joint National Secretary..it was corrupt to the core.. but gillard silenced him by offering him the job of Commissioner to the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW.. ::) ::)when the sh!t started hitting the fan..with naughty journos asking too hard questions..

do we need to point out more...wont make any difference the left will always protect CORRUPTION..its in their makeup.it goes with being a member of the ALP..ask tripodi?or whats that other bloke.. burke.. ::)

Stratos wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:26pm:

labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:15pm: So what was said? Compelling interview. A must listen. Bring on justice. wait for the pod cast to be put up. Any evidence?

I doubt it would have got this far if there was no evidence????..

its one of the first things the Law insists on.. ::) ::)

hearsay wont be an option in this case I dont think...


of course there is the problem of the shredder I am sure every unionist and ALP member has one of those..

AP, nothing 'unsubstantiated' about the Abbott allegations at all, but that has been done and done and done, just like this old shite about Gillard.

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

do we need to point out more...wont make any difference the left will always protect CORRUPTION..its in their makeup.it goes with being a member of the ALP.

So what was the evidence or allegations made against her?  Has anything actually come out of the interview?

Stratos wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:26pm:

labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:15pm: So what was said? Compelling interview. A must listen. Bring on justice. wait for the pod cast to be put up. Any evidence?

Listen here being replayed and judge for yourself.

http://www.2gb.com/listen-live

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:28pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm: GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'(

You mean the assault he said he didn't do, he said they lied about, then he said perhaps he did, and then we heard how great a husband he is?  That assault?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:19pm:

Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:15pm: So what was said? Oh the usual rehased bull crap.  See, Michael needs to continue this as its the only way he makes money. Loonyville is his bread and butter and they get caught, hook line and sinker, each and every time. So sad when people are this dumb :(

I am almost positive if this was ABBOTT you would be sitting on the edge you have condemned him left and right over allegations.. nothing that had him charged or convicted...yet all the time its on the threads...Abbott punched a WALL.. big deal..

this man Kernohan was bashed stupid...he had his entitlements with held for 9 years by the union....and a person called Bill Shorten..this investigation wont just be about GILLARD....that we can promise you.

but lets wait for it ALL TO COME OUT>. I am sure there are one or two lefties who would like to see justice done.. even if it does mean more bad news for Labor..

Cods, I have no love for the labor party whatsoever, I just want to know what exactly she is being accused of and what it is being substantiated with.

The Roids are getting restless!    2GB, Mike Smith and probably pickering as well.    



Perhaps you should all book at Fawlty Towers for a congrats drinkey poo

---

labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:26pm: labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:15pm: So what was said? Compelling interview. A must listen. Bring on justice. wait for the pod cast to be put up. Any evidence? Listen here being replayed and judge for yourself. http://www.2gb.com/listen-live

How about you tell us in your own words, Mr Corrupt?

labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:26pm: labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:15pm: So what was said? Compelling interview. A must listen. Bring on justice. wait for the pod cast to be put up. Any evidence? Listen here being replayed and judge for yourself. http://www.2gb.com/listen-live

had a listen, just middle aged women agreeing with him, and nothing more incriminating was mentioned other than they had issued a search warrant for the files regarding the case involved. 

Stratos wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:51pm:

labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:35pm: Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:26pm: labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:15pm: So what was said? Compelling interview. A must listen. Bring on justice. wait for the pod cast to be put up. Any evidence? Listen here being replayed and judge for yourself. http://www.2gb.com/listen-live had a listen, just middle aged women agreeing with him, and nothing more incriminating was mentioned other than they had issued a search warrant for the files regarding the case involved.

didn't they do that 6 months ago????

yup

Given one term tonys habit of adopting the policies of third world dictators I would be surprised if jailing all previous and present opposition pollies wasn't part of his agenda and his shock jock goons are perfect conduits for his anti opposition propaganda machine

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:34pm:

Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:26pm: labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:15pm: So what was said? Compelling interview. A must listen. Bring on justice. wait for the pod cast to be put up. Any evidence? I doubt it would have got this far if there was no evidence????.. its one of the first things the Law insists on.. ::) ::) hearsay wont be an option in this case I dont think... of course there is the problem of the shredder I am sure every unionist and ALP member has one of those..

12 victorian fraud squad members working on the case.

Wilson trying to block the police from accessing files in the court right now.

Who is paying for wilsons QC?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 4:00pm:

Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:51pm: labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:35pm: Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:26pm: labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:15pm: So what was said? Compelling interview. A must listen. Bring on justice. wait for the pod cast to be put up. Any evidence? Listen here being replayed and judge for yourself. http://www.2gb.com/listen-live had a listen, just middle aged women agreeing with him, and nothing more incriminating was mentioned other than they had issued a search warrant for the files regarding the case involved.  didn't they do that 6 months ago????

Not only 'they,' so did we.

*flip*

Stratos wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:32pm: do we need to point out more...wont make any difference the left will always protect CORRUPTION..its in their makeup.it goes with being a member of the ALP. So what was the evidence or allegations made against her?  Has anything actually come out of the interview?

it isnt  about gillard.. its more about WILSON her married lover.at the time..Kernohan as far as I know didnt have anything to do with that part of it..gillard was involved with Wilson who stole from the UNION THE UNION WAS the  AWU...from what we have been told Wilson might not have got away with what he did..[rumour has it as much as $400.000].. without gillards aid.. ::) ::) she set up the so called slush fund... and got Wilson the power of attorney over his partner in crime Ralph Blewitt who is going to be a witness for the other side..he claims he knew nothing about slush funds and houses bought in his name.. ::)

its a long story but Kernohan was the President of the AWU.when this all was going on...and certain people wanted it hushed up.. swept under the carpet as they do...and for a long time they got their way......until gillard hit the high time and questions were asked and people got the sack for daring to ask them...

Michael Smith being one of them...he lost his job because he wouldnt be shut up and the PM of the day didnt like it... do you not think there is a problem with that???

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 4:25pm:

Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:35pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:32pm: do we need to point out more...wont make any difference the left will always protect CORRUPTION..its in their makeup.it goes with being a member of the ALP. So what was the evidence or allegations made against her?  Has anything actually come out of the interview? it isnt  about gillard.. its more about WILSON her married lover.at the time..Kernohan as far as I know didnt have anything to do with that part of it..gillard was involved with Wilson who stole from the UNION THE UNION WAS the  AWU...from what we have been told Wilson might not have got away with what he did..[rumour has it as much as $400.000].. without gillards aid.. ::) ::) she set up the so called slush fund... and got Wilson the power of attorney over his partner in crime Ralph Blewitt who is going to be a witness for the other side..he claims he knew nothing about slush funds and houses bought in his name.. ::) its a long story but Kernohan was the President of the AWU.when this all was going on...and certain people wanted it hushed up.. swept under the carpet as they do...and for a long time they got their way......until gillard hit the high time and questions were asked and people got the sack for daring to ask them... Michael Smith being one of them...he lost his job because he wouldnt be shut up and the PM of the day didnt like it... do you not think there is a problem with that???

cods some think theirs nothing to see, so they will support the royal commission.

Stratos wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:43pm:

Cods, I have no love for the labor party whatsoever, I just want to know what exactly she is being accused of and what it is being substantiated with.

I dont know where you have been this past couple of years then...
she as far as I know HASNT BEEN ACCUSED OF ANYTHING>.

its a ROYAL COMMISSION into the AWU as was run in the early 90s..the suggestion is $400.000 went somewhere that was meant for the AWU>>. but it didnt go there it went somewhere else...a slush fund was mentioned.. and Julia Gillard who as a Lawyer at that time and lover of Bruce Wilson...worked to help Wilson set up said slush fund.........they are now looking for evidence that will tell them where the MONEY that disappeared during those years went...

gillard claimed she was young and naive in those days... she was 32...but thats not a crime...but did she help set up a fund so money could be syphoned into it instead of the AWU Bank account..????..

whilst PM she did all in here power not to answer any questions on the subject in parliament.. she was also responsible for two journos getting the sack because they wouldnt back off asking about the AWU..... she will I am sure be asked questions under oath..we shall see of course..you see also an awful lot of money from the Kalgorlie Miners Widows fund also went missing..and Gillard was the one who talked them into handing the fund over to Wilson....she wasnt not has she been accused of taking the money....Wilson is the one....and maybe Blewitt..who at least has admitted being a bad boy where as everyone else.. is as innocent as the driven snow.... ::)..

I am sure it will all be headlines again stratos so be patient.

labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 4:07pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:34pm: Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:26pm: labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:15pm: So what was said? Compelling interview. A must listen. Bring on justice. wait for the pod cast to be put up. Any evidence? I doubt it would have got this far if there was no evidence????.. its one of the first things the Law insists on.. ::) ::) hearsay wont be an option in this case I dont think... of course there is the problem of the shredder I am sure every unionist and ALP member has one of those.. 12 victorian fraud squad members working on the case. Wilson trying to block the police from accessing files in the court right now. Who is paying for wilsons QC?

the UNION perhaps...maybe even gillard they go back a,long way dont they.. ;) ;)

I haven't heard it yet, but Ben fordham is a very credible source and I will have a listen soon. Anybody who's read about the AWU knows that Gillard was dodgy and she did set up a slush fund, that is a fact. Whether or not she knew its purpose is unknwn, but knowing her character, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:38pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:28pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm: GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'( You mean the assault he said he didn't do, he said they lied about, then he said perhaps he did, and then we heard how great a husband he is?  That assault?

Oh, you mean the assault that a woman swears happened but who refuses to sign a stat dec? That one? Don't make me laugh, LMAO!!!  ;D ;D ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 5:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:28pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm: GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'( You mean the assault he said he didn't do, he said they lied about, then he said perhaps he did, and then we heard how great a husband he is?  That assault? Oh, you mean the assault that a woman swears happened but who refuses to sign a stat dec? That one? Don't make me laugh, LMAO!!!  ;D ;D ;D

Dunno about a Stat Dec, (maybe you can provide a link) but I do know she was willing to, and did take the matter to Court where she knew she would be giving evidence in person and on oath.

Click here.

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 5:25pm:

labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 4:07pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:34pm: Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:26pm: labor are corrupt wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:24pm: Stratos wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:15pm: So what was said? Compelling interview. A must listen. Bring on justice. wait for the pod cast to be put up. Any evidence? I doubt it would have got this far if there was no evidence????.. its one of the first things the Law insists on.. ::) ::) hearsay wont be an option in this case I dont think... of course there is the problem of the shredder I am sure every unionist and ALP member has one of those.. 12 victorian fraud squad members working on the case. Wilson trying to block the police from accessing files in the court right now. Who is paying for wilsons QC? the UNION perhaps...maybe even gillard they go back a,long way dont they.. ;) ;)

you could be on the money cods.

Quote:

Dunno about a Stat Dec, (maybe you can provide a link) but I do know she was willing to, and did take the matter to Court where she knew she would be giving evidence in person and on oath. Click here.

And she did not back off.  The other side surrendered.

matty wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 5:44pm:

... Ben fordham is a very credible source ...

http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/colbert-laugh.gif

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 5:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:28pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm: GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'( You mean the assault he said he didn't do, he said they lied about, then he said perhaps he did, and then we heard how great a husband he is?  That assault? Oh, you mean the assault that a woman swears happened but who refuses to sign a stat dec? That one? Don't make me laugh, LMAO!!!

Link?    :-/

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 5:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:28pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm: GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'( You mean the assault he said he didn't do, he said they lied about, then he said perhaps he did, and then we heard how great a husband he is?  That assault? Oh, you mean the assault that a woman swears happened but who refuses to sign a stat dec? That one? Don't make me laugh, LMAO!!!  ;D ;D ;D

its gotta be true ITS IN DAVID MARRS NEW BOOK...LOLOLOLOLOL.. and he has an un named witness to what he THINKS happened...he didnt see it of course.. but whats that got to do with anything.. ::) ::)


so funny.. nothing stands up when it comes to gillards involvement in anything... but when it comes to Abbott.. this is definitely good enough...Rumpole must be spinning.

Aussie wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 5:52pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 5:45pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:28pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm: GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'( You mean the assault he said he didn't do, he said they lied about, then he said perhaps he did, and then we heard how great a husband he is?  That assault? Oh, you mean the assault that a woman swears happened but who refuses to sign a stat dec? That one? Don't make me laugh, LMAO!!!  ;D ;D ;D Dunno about a Stat Dec, (maybe you can provide a link) but I do know she was willing to, and did take the matter to Court where she knew she would be giving evidence in person and on oath. Click here.

Ms Ramjan is suing Nationwide News, the publisher of The Australian newspaper over claims Liberal Party powerbroker Michael Kroger made in an article that the Supreme Court has been told conveyed imputations that she was a serial manufacturer of false complaints against her political opponents and that she had fabricated an allegation that Tony Abbott had physically intimidated her in 1977




she was suing the newspaper not abbott...over allegation she was a serial false complainer....

got nothing to do with ABBOTT

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 4:25pm:

it isnt  about gillard.. its more about WILSON

not according to the thread title ! :D :D :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:54pm:

matty wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 5:44pm: ... Ben fordham is a very credible source ... http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/colbert-laugh.gif

I think thats more appropriate for aussies link myself...

he loves this link its got not a thing to do with Abbott or gillard for that matter. ::) ::)

cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:53am:

Aussie wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 5:52pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 5:45pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:28pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm: GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'( You mean the assault he said he didn't do, he said they lied about, then he said perhaps he did, and then we heard how great a husband he is?  That assault? Oh, you mean the assault that a woman swears happened but who refuses to sign a stat dec? That one? Don't make me laugh, LMAO!!!  ;D ;D ;D Dunno about a Stat Dec, (maybe you can provide a link) but I do know she was willing to, and did take the matter to Court where she knew she would be giving evidence in person and on oath. Click here. Ms Ramjan is suing Nationwide News, the publisher of The Australian newspaper over claims Liberal Party powerbroker Michael Kroger made in an article that the Supreme Court has been told conveyed imputations that she was a serial manufacturer of false complaints against her political opponents and that she had fabricated an allegation that Tony Abbott had physically intimidated her in 1977 she was suing the newspaper not abbott...over allegation she was a serial false complainer.... got nothing to do with ABBOTT

Newsflash Cods, if what the paper was printing was true, they can not be sued.

To explain to cods...

1.  Woman says Abbott herded her against a wall and punched, the blow not striking her head, but instead hits the wall beside her head.

2.  Newspaper says she is lying about that.

3.  She sues them for defamation, and that means she intends to sit in a witness box and give sworn testimony that Abbott herded her against a wall and punched, the blow not striking her head, but instead hits the wall beside her head.

4.  Rather than substantiating their claim that the woman lied about what Abbott did, the paper offers to pay her money, and she agrees to accept the money ~ the matter is thus 'settled.'

Fact is, the woman said it happened, was willing to give sworn testimony in the box and be cross-examined, other witnesses were available to give evidence in support of her claim, even though they never saw the actual blow, just aspects both immediately before, and after.

The paper backed down from its allegation that she lied.  The other side of that same coin is ~ she was telling the truth and the paper could not find a credible witness to back up its claim that she lied about it, and that obviously includes Tony Abbott.

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:58am:

Newsflash Cods, if what the paper was printing was true, they can not be sued.

HILARIOUS...



SHE WAS SUING THE PAPER OVER CLAIMS ABBOTTS POWERBROKER MICHAEL KROGER..WHO. SAID.

.SHE WAS A SERIAL MANUFACTURER OF FALSE COMPLAINTS AGAINST HER POLITICAL OPPONENTS


IN CASE YOU DO NOT KNOW IT.................

SHE NEVER TOOK ABBOTT TO COURT.........HE WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH HITTING A WALL BESIDE HER HEAD....

MAYBE SHE DID MAKE IT ALL UP..... ::) ::).

AND MAYBE TAKING HIM TO COURT WOULD HAVE EXPOSED HER AS A FAKER...

WE WILL NEVER KNOW WILL WE.. >:(

HE WAS CHARGED WITH INDECENT ASSAULT...IT WAS THROWN OUT OF COURT..

IF YOU LEFTIES CAN FIND WHERE ABBOTT WAS CHARGED WITH HITTING A WALL...AND APPEARED IN COURT I WILL BE HAPPY TO APOLIGISE.

MAKE UP ALL THE LIES YOU CAN THINK OF AND PRETEND TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IN COURT... BUT IF YOU DONT MIND I PREFER THE REAL EVIDENCE.NOT WHAT YOU IMAGINE.

cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 2:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:58am: Newsflash Cods, if what the paper was printing was true, they can not be sued. HILARIOUS... SHE WAS SUING THE PAPER OVER CLAIMS ABBOTTS POWERBROKER MICHAEL KROGER..WHO. SAID. .SHE WAS A SERIAL MANUFACTURER OF FALSE COMPLAINTS AGAINST HER POLITICAL OPPONENTS IN CASE YOU DO NOT KNOW IT................. SHE NEVER TOOK ABBOTT TO COURT.........HE WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH HITTING A WALL BESIDE HER HEAD.... MAYBE SHE DID MAKE IT ALL UP..... ::) ::). AND MAYBE TAKING HIM TO COURT WOULD HAVE EXPOSED HER AS A FAKER... WE WILL NEVER KNOW WILL WE.. >:( HE WAS CHARGED WITH INDECENT ASSAULT...IT WAS THROWN OUT OF COURT.. IF YOU LEFTIES CAN FIND WHERE ABBOTT WAS CHARGED WITH HITTING A WALL...AND APPEARED IN COURT I WILL BE HAPPY TO APOLIGISE. MAKE UP ALL THE LIES YOU CAN THINK OF AND PRETEND TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IN COURT... BUT IF YOU DONT MIND I PREFER THE REAL EVIDENCE.NOT WHAT YOU IMAGINE.

Didn't he appear in court about that? So he only appeared on court for indecently assaults another women, goodo. 8-)

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:58am:

cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:53am: Aussie wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 5:52pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 5:45pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:28pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm: GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'( You mean the assault he said he didn't do, he said they lied about, then he said perhaps he did, and then we heard how great a husband he is?  That assault? Oh, you mean the assault that a woman swears happened but who refuses to sign a stat dec? That one? Don't make me laugh, LMAO!!!  ;D ;D ;D Dunno about a Stat Dec, (maybe you can provide a link) but I do know she was willing to, and did take the matter to Court where she knew she would be giving evidence in person and on oath. Click here. Ms Ramjan is suing Nationwide News, the publisher of The Australian newspaper over claims Liberal Party powerbroker Michael Kroger made in an article that the Supreme Court has been told conveyed imputations that she was a serial manufacturer of false complaints against her political opponents and that she had fabricated an allegation that Tony Abbott had physically intimidated her in 1977 she was suing the newspaper not abbott...over allegation she was a serial false complainer.... got nothing to do with ABBOTT Newsflash Cods, if what the paper was printing was true, they can not be sued.

In which case, the lawsuit will be tossed out of court..

Ms Ramjan's opinion that the paper lied doesn't have to be true for her lodge a lawsuit, just for her to WIN it.

skippy. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

Didn't he appear in court about that? So he only appeared on court for indecently assaults another women, goodo

thats right... and what happened??????????????????..

unlike gillard or shorty who may have one or two awkward questions they will have no CHOICE BUT TO ANSWER.... >:(

when abbott comes up before a ROYAL COMMISSION... let us know wont you? >:(

he would have only had to touch her on the shoulder to be charged you know..lol..he claimed he touched her back...can you prove different.?

as you seem obsessed with it I am sure you have every detail.

cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 3:24pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Didn't he appear in court about that? So he only appeared on court for indecently assaults another women, goodo thats right... and what happened??????????????????.. unlike gillard or shorty who may have one or two awkward questions they will have no CHOICE BUT TO ANSWER.... >:( when abbott comes up before a ROYAL COMMISSION... let us know wont you? >:( he would have only had to touch her on the shoulder to be charged you know..lol..he claimed he touched her back...can you prove different.? as you seem obsessed with it I am sure you have every detail.

Th women claims Abbott touched her between her legs,  are you calling the women that he indecently assaulted a liar??? I think you'll find the women knows the difference between her shoulder and her fluffy bunny,dear.

Don’t care about Gillard and the union.

Wish they’d just drop the whole thing.

Quote:

In which case, the lawsuit will be tossed out of court.. Ms Ramjan's opinion that the paper lied doesn't have to be true for her lodge a lawsuit, just for her to WIN it.

Gizmo #### you have it arse about. 

1.  Woman makes accusation about Abbott.
2.  Paper says "You are a liar, woman."
3.  Woman sues for defamation.
4.  Paper bails out and settles, because it realised it could not prove it's lying allegation to be true.
5.  Litigation ended with the settlement.

skippy. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:24pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Didn't he appear in court about that? So he only appeared on court for indecently assaults another women, goodo thats right... and what happened??????????????????.. unlike gillard or shorty who may have one or two awkward questions they will have no CHOICE BUT TO ANSWER.... >:( when abbott comes up before a ROYAL COMMISSION... let us know wont you? >:( he would have only had to touch her on the shoulder to be charged you know..lol..he claimed he touched her back...can you prove different.? as you seem obsessed with it I am sure you have every detail. Th women claims Abbott touched her between her legs,  are you calling the women that he indecently assaulted a liar??? I think you'll find the women knows the difference between her shoulder and her fluffy bunny,dear.

Cmon Skip...we know that all the accusations made against Tony Abbott throughout the years are lies.
Its only the accusations made against Abbotts rivals that are always true  :D

adelcrow wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 3:41pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:27pm: cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:24pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Didn't he appear in court about that? So he only appeared on court for indecently assaults another women, goodo Finally  you got something RIGHT thats right... and what happened??????????????????.. unlike gillard or shorty who may have one or two awkward questions they will have no CHOICE BUT TO ANSWER.... >:( when abbott comes up before a ROYAL COMMISSION... let us know wont you? >:( he would have only had to touch her on the shoulder to be charged you know..lol..he claimed he touched her back...can you prove different.? as you seem obsessed with it I am sure you have every detail. Th women claims Abbott touched her between her legs,  are you calling the women that he indecently assaulted a liar??? I think you'll find the women knows the difference between her shoulder and her fluffy bunny,dear. Cmon Skip...we know that all the accusations made against Tony Abbott throughout the years are lies. Its only the accusations made against Abbotts rivals that are always true  :D

Finally  you got something RIGHT

skippy. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:24pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Didn't he appear in court about that? So he only appeared on court for indecently assaults another women, goodo thats right... and what happened??????????????????.. unlike gillard or shorty who may have one or two awkward questions they will have no CHOICE BUT TO ANSWER.... >:( when abbott comes up before a ROYAL COMMISSION... let us know wont you? >:( he would have only had to touch her on the shoulder to be charged you know..lol..he claimed he touched her back...can you prove different.? as you seem obsessed with it I am sure you have every detail. Th women claims Abbott touched her between her legs,  are you calling the women that he indecently assaulted a liar??? I think you'll find the women knows the difference between her shoulder and her fluffy bunny,dear.

no you called it her genitalia so I wouldnt be taking your word for anything.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

doesnt sound like you know your front from your back..


as you say.. ITS HER WORD AGAINST HIS>>>she didnt contest the claim again... IT WAS THROWN OUT OF COURT>>>the judge said NEITHER  SIDE HAD PUT UP A GOOD ENOUGH CASE>..

I doubt he would have said that had she had a good enough case...

and he she had a good enough case.. it would have gone back again..... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Aussie wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 3:37pm:

Quote: In which case, the lawsuit will be tossed out of court.. Ms Ramjan's opinion that the paper lied doesn't have to be true for her lodge a lawsuit, just for her to WIN it. Gizmo #### you have it arse about.  1.  Woman makes accusation about Abbott. 2.  Paper says "You are a liar, woman." 3.  Woman sues for defamation. 4.  Paper bails out and settles, because it realised it could not prove it's lying allegation to be true. 5.  Litigation ended with the .

she TOOK THE MONEY>>>> isnt that what she was AFTER>...


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D..

if she wanted ABBOTT AND COULD PROVE WHAT SHE CLAIMED.

SHE WOULD NEVER HAVE SETTLED..... >:(

THIS WAY ONLY THE PAPER PAID...IT WAS CHEAPER.

hardly proves he was guilty!!!!!!!!!!!

No she called it between her legs, dear, she seems to know her fluffy bunny from her shoulder, unlike you.

*flip*

cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 4:15pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:37pm: Quote: In which case, the lawsuit will be tossed out of court.. Ms Ramjan's opinion that the paper lied doesn't have to be true for her lodge a lawsuit, just for her to WIN it. Gizmo #### you have it arse about.  1.  Woman makes accusation about Abbott. 2.  Paper says "You are a liar, woman." 3.  Woman sues for defamation. 4.  Paper bails out and settles, because it realised it could not prove it's lying allegation to be true. 5.  Litigation ended with the . she TOOK THE MONEY>>>> isnt that what she was AFTER>... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.. if she wanted ABBOTT AND COULD PROVE WHAT SHE CLAIMED. SHE WOULD NEVER HAVE SETTLED..... >:( THIS WAY ONLY THE PAPER PAID...IT WAS CHEAPER. hardly proves he was guilty!!!!!!!!!!!

When  you sue for defamation, Cods......you are suing for money.  If the other side folds, and offers you money, in an amount acceptable to you, you settle and save yourself further legal expense.

This paper folded because it could find no-one, including Tony Abbott ~ and he was there, right there when the incident occurred ~ to give evidence it did not.

Everyone with your intelligence can work out what that means, cods.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:38pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:28pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm: GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'( You mean the assault he said he didn't do, he said they lied about, then he said perhaps he did, and then we heard how great a husband he is?  That assault?

It's odd isn't it??...Tony Abbott is supposedly a 'serial groper and intimdator/woman basher', but after all the press coverage and magazine articles/books, there hasn't been ONE single other woman come forward with a similar story. Yet when someone like Bill Clinton has a consensual (yes it was infidelity) affair, other cases and accusations appear out of the wood work.

But for Abbott, only 2 women (both of whom, strangely held opposing political views to Abbott), one of them backed up by a friend from the same student politcal organisation..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 4:47pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:28pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm: GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'( You mean the assault he said he didn't do, he said they lied about, then he said perhaps he did, and then we heard how great a husband he is?  That assault? It's odd isn't it??...Tony Abbott is supposedly a 'serial groper and intimdator/woman basher', but after all the press coverage and magazine articles/books, there hasn't been ONE single other woman come forward with a similar story. Yet when someone like Bill Clinton has a consensual (yes it was infidelity) affair, other cases and accusations appear out of the wood work. But for Abbott, only 2 women (both of whom, strangely held opposing political views to Abbott), one of them backed up by a friend from the same student politcal organisation..

That is just argumentative speculation Mr Gizmo.  Fact is, there are women who allege Abbott assaulted them ~ one sexually, and the other physically in a most violent fashion.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 3:41pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:27pm: cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:24pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Didn't he appear in court about that? So he only appeared on court for indecently assaults another women, goodo thats right... and what happened??????????????????.. unlike gillard or shorty who may have one or two awkward questions they will have no CHOICE BUT TO ANSWER.... >:( when abbott comes up before a ROYAL COMMISSION... let us know wont you? >:( he would have only had to touch her on the shoulder to be charged you know..lol..he claimed he touched her back...can you prove different.? as you seem obsessed with it I am sure you have every detail. Th women claims Abbott touched her between her legs,  are you calling the women that he indecently assaulted a liar??? I think you'll find the women knows the difference between her shoulder and her fluffy bunny,dear. Cmon Skip...we know that all the accusations made against Tony Abbott throughout the years are lies. Its only the accusations made against Abbotts rivals that are always true  :D

AINT THAT THE TRUTH..

cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 5:06pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:41pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:27pm: cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:24pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Didn't he appear in court about that? So he only appeared on court for indecently assaults another women, goodo thats right... and what happened??????????????????.. unlike gillard or shorty who may have one or two awkward questions they will have no CHOICE BUT TO ANSWER.... >:( when abbott comes up before a ROYAL COMMISSION... let us know wont you? >:( he would have only had to touch her on the shoulder to be charged you know..lol..he claimed he touched her back...can you prove different.? as you seem obsessed with it I am sure you have every detail. Th women claims Abbott touched her between her legs,  are you calling the women that he indecently assaulted a liar??? I think you'll find the women knows the difference between her shoulder and her fluffy bunny,dear. Cmon Skip...we know that all the accusations made against Tony Abbott throughout the years are lies. Its only the accusations made against Abbotts rivals that are always true  :D AINT THAT THE TRUTH..

Well, no. It 'ain't'.

But then, you wouldn't recognise the truth if it was biting you on the ass.

Aussie wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 4:30pm:

cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 4:15pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:37pm: Quote: In which case, the lawsuit will be tossed out of court.. Ms Ramjan's opinion that the paper lied doesn't have to be true for her lodge a lawsuit, just for her to WIN it. Gizmo #### you have it arse about.  1.  Woman makes accusation about Abbott. 2.  Paper says "You are a liar, woman." 3.  Woman sues for defamation. 4.  Paper bails out and settles, because it realised it could not prove it's lying allegation to be true. 5.  Litigation ended with the . she TOOK THE MONEY>>>> isnt that what she was AFTER>... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.. if she wanted ABBOTT AND COULD PROVE WHAT SHE CLAIMED. SHE WOULD NEVER HAVE SETTLED..... >:( THIS WAY ONLY THE PAPER PAID...IT WAS CHEAPER. hardly proves he was guilty!!!!!!!!!!! When  you sue for defamation, Cods......you are suing for money.  If the other side folds, and offers you money, in an amount acceptable to you, you settle and save yourself further legal expense. This paper folded because it could find no-one, including Tony Abbott ~ and he was there, right there when the incident occurred ~ to give evidence it did not. Everyone with your intelligence can work out what that means, cods.

SAYS YOU....LOL...YOU HAVE NOT A SKERRICK OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT...

just that you think you have personal connections.... ::) ::)


bring up the name of the person your mate David Marr talks about but doesnt name?????????..

give us the FACTS maestro...???..


NO YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY  SUING FOR MONEY...

AN APOLOGY GOES A LONG WAY WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE.. NOT YOUR KIND OF COURSE.

Here is a scenario....a script......and The Grappler might do better with these things.......but here is my attempt to further explain.

Rumpole is the Lawyer engaged by the Paper:

Paper:  "G'day Rumpole, we ran a story and we called this woman a liar."

Rumpole:  "Did you now.  Why did you do that?"

"Well, it seemed a good idea at the time.  There were lots of stories about the place, so we thought we'd have a go to sell some of our papers."

"Fair enough, and so what.  Why are you here?"

"Ummm.....she is suing us for defamation."

"Oh, I see.  Why did you call her a liar?

"Well, this woman said publicly that Tony Abbott herded her against a wall and punched, the blow not striking her head, but instead hits the wall beside her head.  We said she lied about that."

Rumpole:  "Hah, this will be a stroll in the park.  We'll shite this one in."

Paper:  "How so?"

"Easy peasy.  Hit Abbott with a subpoena to give evidence to the Court about it.  If it did not happen, all we need is for him to sit in the witness box and say so."

Paper:  "We spoke to him already. He won't."

"He won't!  What!!!!!!!!!!!!  You are phucked.  You better get your cheque book out and give her what she is happy to accept."

Paper:  "Okay," and paper leaves Rumpole's Chambers

Rumpole:  "Phucken idiots.   They should have had in their hands a sworn Affidavit signed by Abbott before they called the woman a liar.  Oi, Mary, send these idiots a bill for say.....$10,000.00.  I'm in on the gravy train!"

:)

 

Aussie wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 4:55pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 4:47pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:28pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm: GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'( You mean the assault he said he didn't do, he said they lied about, then he said perhaps he did, and then we heard how great a husband he is?  That assault? It's odd isn't it??...Tony Abbott is supposedly a 'serial groper and intimdator/woman basher', but after all the press coverage and magazine articles/books, there hasn't been ONE single other woman come forward with a similar story. Yet when someone like Bill Clinton has a consensual (yes it was infidelity) affair, other cases and accusations appear out of the wood work. But for Abbott, only 2 women (both of whom, strangely held opposing political views to Abbott), one of them backed up by a friend from the same student politcal organisation.. That is just argumentative speculation Mr Gizmo.  Fact is, there are women who allege Abbott assaulted them ~ one sexually, and the other physically in a most violent fashion.

oopppps... didntyou mean ALLEGEDLY???????defamation coming up maestro.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

unless you have PROOF beyond a shadow of doubt.. which mean not one word against another...but honest to goodness PROOF>..

just because you and skippy keep repeating it doesnt mean it happened. ;D ;D

Guess you missed this cods.


Quote:

Fact is, there are women who allege Abbott assaulted them ~ one sexually, and the other physically in a most violent fashion.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 3:09pm:

Yeah, didn't he give this crap an airing about 2 months ago? Oh & that reminds me, didn't Red Barron also insinuate that a major Gillard scandal was going to break??? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D F*cken Nutters

One of his "little birds" told him - from memory ?


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lm2JI7sGwYI/TS5vRPPfPfI/AAAAAAAAL8E/Hw6CEGu0bQk/s400/dead+bird.jpg

Aussie wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 5:19pm:

Guess you missed this cods. Quote: Fact is, there are women who allege Abbott assaulted them ~ one sexually, and the other physically in a most violent fashion.

Poor sad f#ckwit lefties, all they know is slander.

cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 5:15pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 4:55pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 4:47pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:28pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm: GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'( You mean the assault he said he didn't do, he said they lied about, then he said perhaps he did, and then we heard how great a husband he is?  That assault? It's odd isn't it??...Tony Abbott is supposedly a 'serial groper and intimdator/woman basher', but after all the press coverage and magazine articles/books, there hasn't been ONE single other woman come forward with a similar story. Yet when someone like Bill Clinton has a consensual (yes it was infidelity) affair, other cases and accusations appear out of the wood work. But for Abbott, only 2 women (both of whom, strangely held opposing political views to Abbott), one of them backed up by a friend from the same student politcal organisation.. That is just argumentative speculation Mr Gizmo.  Fact is, there are women who allege Abbott assaulted them ~ one sexually, and the other physically in a most violent fashion. oopppps... didntyou mean ALLEGEDLY???????defamation coming up maestro.. ;D ;D ;D ;D unless you have PROOF beyond a shadow of doubt.. which mean not one word against another...but honest to goodness PROOF>.. just because you and skippy keep repeating it doesnt mean it happened. ;D ;D

Yes dear, have a grade three child explain to you that allegedly comes from the word allege. ;D ;D ;D
Aussie was far too kind using the word allege to begin with, I believe the women, while you on the other hand believe a male that is accused multiple times of assaulting women in all sorts of ways. 8-)

cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 5:15pm:

oopppps... didntyou mean ALLEGEDLY???????defamation coming up maestro.. ;D ;D ;D ;D unless you have PROOF beyond a shadow of doubt.. which mean not one word against another...but honest to goodness PROOF>.. just because you and skippy keep repeating it doesnt mean it happened. ;D ;D

A bit like you mob with the pink batts BS, you mean???

*Grrrrrr....flip*

*flip #2*

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 5:25pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 5:19pm: Guess you missed this cods. Quote: Fact is, there are women who allege Abbott assaulted them ~ one sexually, and the other physically in a most violent fashion. Poor sad f#ckwit lefties, all they know is slander.

;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Have you even read the thread title?  :D :D :D

skippy. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 5:45pm:

cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 5:15pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 4:55pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 4:47pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 3:28pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm: GEEEEZE ! Not THIS old TURKEY again ? http://www.netanimations.net/animated-turkey-with-football.gif Happy to dish it out over the unsubstantiated allegations of Abbott assaulting a woman 30-odd years ago in his early 20's, but can't handle it when it's Gillard in the hot seat over corruption when she was supposedly a competent lawyer. Cry me a river! :'( You mean the assault he said he didn't do, he said they lied about, then he said perhaps he did, and then we heard how great a husband he is?  That assault? It's odd isn't it??...Tony Abbott is supposedly a 'serial groper and intimdator/woman basher', but after all the press coverage and magazine articles/books, there hasn't been ONE single other woman come forward with a similar story. Yet when someone like Bill Clinton has a consensual (yes it was infidelity) affair, other cases and accusations appear out of the wood work. But for Abbott, only 2 women (both of whom, strangely held opposing political views to Abbott), one of them backed up by a friend from the same student politcal organisation.. That is just argumentative speculation Mr Gizmo.  Fact is, there are women who allege Abbott assaulted them ~ one sexually, and the other physically in a most violent fashion. oopppps... didntyou mean ALLEGEDLY???????defamation coming up maestro.. ;D ;D ;D ;D unless you have PROOF beyond a shadow of doubt.. which mean not one word against another...but honest to goodness PROOF>.. just because you and skippy keep repeating it doesnt mean it happened. ;D ;D Yes dear, have a grade three child explain to you that allegedly comes from the word allege. ;D ;D ;D Aussie was far too kind using the word allege to begin with, I believe the women, while you on the other hand believe a male that is accused multiple times of assaulting women in all sorts of ways. 8-)

you poor boy you must have missed the saga of aussie going through all my posts to prove I should hav e and didnt use the WORD ALLEGEDLY>>.so when you know what you are talking about join in..

I do not believe you will find a post... ask aussie. ::). where I have said either are innocent..I am going by the FACTS the ones that are in the OPEN>. and have been through the COURTS>.

ABBOTT has not denied this court case... he has not denied he was charged...

IT IS A FACT IT WAS THROWN OUT OF COURT AND NO CHARGES WERE MADE..


gillard on the other hand has denied a lot...she has a lot to live up too..


you see sunshine.. ITs AUSSIE that thinks he is the bush lawyer on here..

NOT ME>. but if the pot insists on  calling the kettle black..

then its only fair if he makes up the rules he  at least pertains to be ruled by them himself

you dont agree that allege is necessary.. tell aussie not me..hes the one that wishes to split hairs

Kat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 5:51pm:

cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 5:15pm: oopppps... didntyou mean ALLEGEDLY???????defamation coming up maestro.. ;D ;D ;D ;D unless you have PROOF beyond a shadow of doubt.. which mean not one word against another...but honest to goodness PROOF>.. just because you and skippy keep repeating it doesnt mean it happened. ;D ;D A bit like you mob with the pink batts BS, you mean???

NO I DONT... THE FACT IS ABBOTT WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY IT WAS THROWN OUT OF COURT...

THE PINKBATTS ARE BEING INVESTIGATED BECAUSE 4 YOUNG MEN DIED.. SADLY THROUGH NEGLECT OF SOME KIND..

THAT WE LAY IT TO REST IS A GOOD THING....A

if the Labor govt comes out squeaky clean like you claim they will..good oh..at least the families can move on....as it is NO THE LABOR GOVT HASNT BEEN CLEARED they have been mentioned on every report.. but nothing has gone any further...no member of the govt or bureaucracy has spoken about this. krudd after many months and being pushed did say he was sorry..


what are you afraid of?????..

if I was as convinced this had nothing to do with the govt.. I would be thrilled they were having a ROYAL...as everyone who is asked has to appear or risk jail...... an d if I was as positive as you appear to be.. I would be saying good on ya.. clear the air..

instead of whining incessantly

cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:14pm:

Kat wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 5:51pm: cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 5:15pm: oopppps... didntyou mean ALLEGEDLY???????defamation coming up maestro.. ;D ;D ;D ;D unless you have PROOF beyond a shadow of doubt.. which mean not one word against another...but honest to goodness PROOF>.. just because you and skippy keep repeating it doesnt mean it happened. ;D ;D A bit like you mob with the pink batts BS, you mean??? NO I DONT... THE FACT IS ABBOTT WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY IT WAS THROWN OUT OF COURT... THE PINKBATTS ARE BEING INVESTIGATED BECAUSE 4 YOUNG MEN DIED.. SADLY THROUGH NEGLECT OF SOME KIND.. THAT WE LAY IT TO REST IS A GOOD THING....A if the Labor govt comes out squeaky clean like you claim they will..good oh..at least the families can move on....as it is NO THE LABOR GOVT HASNT BEEN CLEARED they have been mentioned on every report.. but nothing has gone any further...no member of the govt or bureaucracy has spoken about this. krudd after many months and being pushed did say he was sorry.. what are you afraid of?????.. if I was as convinced this had nothing to do with the govt.. I would be thrilled they were having a ROYAL...as everyone who is asked has to appear or risk jail...... an d if I was as positive as you appear to be.. I would be saying good on ya.. clear the air.. instead of whining incessantly

No.

You got your answers, and you didn't like them, so now you're shopping for someone who'll give you the answers YOU want, regardless of whether they're actually correct.

And it's the pathetic Right who can't STFU about it.

It's the pathetic Right who are 'whining', no-one else.

cods.....you miss the point.


I posted:


Quote:

Fact is, there are women who allege Abbott assaulted them ~ one sexually, and the other physically in a most violent fashion.

You responded with:


Quote:

oopppps... didntyou mean ALLEGEDLY???????

:)

seriously, why does anybody argue anything with Cods? It's like trying to debate with a brainless parrot ... no matter what you say, it'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again...


Coddsy want a cracker :D :D

Kat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:20pm:

cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:14pm: Kat wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 5:51pm: cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 5:15pm: oopppps... didntyou mean ALLEGEDLY???????defamation coming up maestro.. ;D ;D ;D ;D unless you have PROOF beyond a shadow of doubt.. which mean not one word against another...but honest to goodness PROOF>.. just because you and skippy keep repeating it doesnt mean it happened. ;D ;D A bit like you mob with the pink batts BS, you mean??? NO I DONT... THE FACT IS ABBOTT WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY IT WAS THROWN OUT OF COURT... THE PINKBATTS ARE BEING INVESTIGATED BECAUSE 4 YOUNG MEN DIED.. SADLY THROUGH NEGLECT OF SOME KIND.. THAT WE LAY IT TO REST IS A GOOD THING....A if the Labor govt comes out squeaky clean like you claim they will..good oh..at least the families can move on....as it is NO THE LABOR GOVT HASNT BEEN CLEARED they have been mentioned on every report.. but nothing has gone any further...no member of the govt or bureaucracy has spoken about this. krudd after many months and being pushed did say he was sorry.. what are you afraid of?????.. if I was as convinced this had nothing to do with the govt.. I would be thrilled they were having a ROYAL...as everyone who is asked has to appear or risk jail...... an d if I was as positive as you appear to be.. I would be saying good on ya.. clear the air.. instead of whining incessantly No. You got your answers, and you didn't like them, so now you're shopping for someone who'll give you the answers YOU want, regardless of whether they're actually correct. And it's the pathetic Right who can't STFU about it. It's the pathetic Right who are 'whining', no-one else.

No, sweetheart. You and your fellow loony leftie have been whining and bitching ever since the Coalition was elected in September of last year, led by the allegedly (but proven not to be) Tony Abbott.

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:00pm:

seriously, why does anybody argue anything with Cods? It's like trying to debate with a brainless parrot ... no matter what you say, it'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again... Coddsy want a cracker :D :D

Cods has two things on her side that you don't - facts and common sense.

matty wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:00pm: seriously, why does anybody argue anything with Cods? It's like trying to debate with a brainless parrot ... no matter what you say, it'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again... Coddsy want a cracker :D :D Cods has two things on her side that you don't - facts and common sense.

Well, as if any were needed, that confirms your status as the forum idiot.

matty wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

Kat wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:20pm: cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:14pm: Kat wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 5:51pm: cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 5:15pm: oopppps... didntyou mean ALLEGEDLY???????defamation coming up maestro.. ;D ;D ;D ;D unless you have PROOF beyond a shadow of doubt.. which mean not one word against another...but honest to goodness PROOF>.. just because you and skippy keep repeating it doesnt mean it happened. ;D ;D A bit like you mob with the pink batts BS, you mean??? NO I DONT... THE FACT IS ABBOTT WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY IT WAS THROWN OUT OF COURT... THE PINKBATTS ARE BEING INVESTIGATED BECAUSE 4 YOUNG MEN DIED.. SADLY THROUGH NEGLECT OF SOME KIND.. THAT WE LAY IT TO REST IS A GOOD THING....A if the Labor govt comes out squeaky clean like you claim they will..good oh..at least the families can move on....as it is NO THE LABOR GOVT HASNT BEEN CLEARED they have been mentioned on every report.. but nothing has gone any further...no member of the govt or bureaucracy has spoken about this. krudd after many months and being pushed did say he was sorry.. what are you afraid of?????.. if I was as convinced this had nothing to do with the govt.. I would be thrilled they were having a ROYAL...as everyone who is asked has to appear or risk jail...... an d if I was as positive as you appear to be.. I would be saying good on ya.. clear the air.. instead of whining incessantly No. You got your answers, and you didn't like them, so now you're shopping for someone who'll give you the answers YOU want, regardless of whether they're actually correct. And it's the pathetic Right who can't STFU about it. It's the pathetic Right who are 'whining', no-one else. No, sweetheart. You and your fellow loony leftie have been whining and bitching ever since the Coalition was elected in September of last year, led by the allegedly (but proven not to be) Tony Abbott.

No, not really.

That's been the preserve of the Right since 2007.

So suck it up if you cop a bit of your own medicine back.

Of course, if you don't like it, don't read it.

Seems to work for you with anything factual, so it shouldn't be too difficult.

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 7:50pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 5:25pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 5:19pm: Guess you missed this cods. Quote: Fact is, there are women who allege Abbott assaulted them ~ one sexually, and the other physically in a most violent fashion. Poor sad f#ckwit lefties, all they know is slander. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Have you even read the thread title?  :D :D :D

what is slanderous.... SHE IS BEING INVESTIGATED.....SHE WILL GO BEFORE THE ROYAL...TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON HER ACTIONS DURING THE THEFT OF MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FROM THE AWU...EVERYONE DURING THAT TIME IS UNDER INVESTIGATION..ALLEGATION HAVE BEEN MADE & SHE EVEN ADMITS SHE OPENED A SLUSH FUND... WHICH THE AWU KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT...

matty wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:00pm: seriously, why does anybody argue anything with Cods? It's like trying to debate with a brainless parrot ... no matter what you say, it'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again... Coddsy want a cracker :D :D Cods has two things on her side that you don't - facts and common sense.

got to laugh matty Benito calls his remarks debating... ::)
just as well no one take him seriously.. have you seen anyone debate an actual topic with him.???.

its all personal attacks its what he is well known for.. :D
he even imagines I care what he thinks...if we agreed with him I would be disgusted....eee rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrk I dont mind the idiots picking on me... it makes me laugh...I reckon I hit a raw nerve...and they cant deal with it.....simple really... like them. ::)

Kat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:33pm:

matty wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:21pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:00pm: seriously, why does anybody argue anything with Cods? It's like trying to debate with a brainless parrot ... no matter what you say, it'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again... Coddsy want a cracker :D :D Cods has two things on her side that you don't - facts and common sense. Well, as if any were needed, that confirms your status as the forum idiot.

well there you go matty even another board idiot agrees with us..benito is the form idiot.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

many blessings ,

these admitted criminal acts by julia gillard

will be addressed and investigated

all has been recorded and in as much her fate awaits .

as it does with all beings , do any deny this ?

all will be called upon to answer for misdeeds and

misrepresentations committed thus then bringing

into question all directives given from any criminal

PM .

great viewing yes carry on

in divine light

namaste

- : ) =

Re: Ignoring certain posters
Reply #14 - Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm Quote  Actually, I enjoy reading most comments, even those I may disagree with.

There are one or two members who post nothing but trash and abuse, but
that's to be expected (not necessarily condoned). These I do tend to skim
over or ignore. As I usually do with the more blatant and idiotic statements
and partisan BS from one or two of the more rabid Righties.

And of course, there are the serial pests and abusers whose every response
to a comment is personal abuse or insults. These cannot be ignored, and will
either cop the same in kind, or be reported if it's too OTT. I have never been
the kind of person who 'dobs' to the mods, but that is going to change.

This group, I am thoroughly out of patience with.[url][/url]



matty go have a read on feedback...

ignoring certain posters...



kat really has no idea what he writes.......he only write nice stuff about everyone..and is never ever abusive........I am sure you have noticed...

I just love posters who praise themselves out of the forum....whilst being the biggest bitchers going..

theres an old saying I need dna for this..

if only we could see ourselves as others see us.. :D :D :D

Aussie wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:27pm:

cods.....you miss the point. I posted: Quote: Fact is, there are women who allege Abbott assaulted them ~ one sexually, and the other physically in a most violent fashion. You responded with: [quote]oopppps... didntyou mean ALLEGEDLY???????

:) [/quote]







yep your right..lol :P :P.

but not always.. :D.

matty wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:00pm: seriously, why does anybody argue anything with Cods? It's like trying to debate with a brainless parrot ... no matter what you say, it'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again... Coddsy want a cracker :D :D Cods has two things on her side that you don't - facts and common sense.

I see no need to insult Cods it is unneeded but really Matty could you have said anything sillier in that comparison.

I would say that facts and common sense and among JS's stronger points.

cods wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 6:23am:

Re: Ignoring certain posters Reply #14 - Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm Quote  Actually, I enjoy reading most comments, even those I may disagree with. There are one or two members who post nothing but trash and abuse, but that's to be expected (not necessarily condoned). These I do tend to skim over or ignore. As I usually do with the more blatant and idiotic statements and partisan BS from one or two of the more rabid Righties. And of course, there are the serial pests and abusers whose every response to a comment is personal abuse or insults. These cannot be ignored, and will either cop the same in kind, or be reported if it's too OTT. I have never been the kind of person who 'dobs' to the mods, but that is going to change. This group, I am thoroughly out of patience with.[url][/url] matty go have a read on feedback... ignoring certain posters... kat really has no idea what he writes.......he only write nice stuff about everyone..and is never ever abusive........I am sure you have noticed... I just love posters who praise themselves out of the forum....whilst being the biggest bitchers going.. theres an old saying I need dna for this.. if only we could see ourselves as others see us.. :D :D :D

What part of 'certain posters' did you fail to understand?

You, Matty, and one or two others are simply too stupid to be ignored.

if I really posted what I thought of some of you, I'd be banned.

And I'm starting to think it may be worth it.

So I'd STFU, if I were you.

YOU are one of the main offenders.

And yes, your post IS trolling.

cods wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 6:13am:

Kat wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:33pm: matty wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:21pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:00pm: seriously, why does anybody argue anything with Cods? It's like trying to debate with a brainless parrot ... no matter what you say, it'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again... Coddsy want a cracker :D :D Cods has two things on her side that you don't - facts and common sense. Well, as if any were needed, that confirms your status as the forum idiot. well there you go matty even another board idiot agrees with us..benito is the form idiot.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And that little gem confirms you as one.

Again, as if confirmation was needed.

It's fairly obvious to most that I was not referring to 'Benito' (whoever the smack
that is supposed to be) but Matty.

cods wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 6:23am:

Re: Ignoring certain posters Reply #14 - Jan 7th, 2014 at 2:24pm Quote  Actually, I enjoy reading most comments, even those I may disagree with. There are one or two members who post nothing but trash and abuse, but that's to be expected (not necessarily condoned). These I do tend to skim over or ignore. As I usually do with the more blatant and idiotic statements and partisan BS from one or two of the more rabid Righties. And of course, there are the serial pests and abusers whose every response to a comment is personal abuse or insults. These cannot be ignored, and will either cop the same in kind, or be reported if it's too OTT. I have never been the kind of person who 'dobs' to the mods, but that is going to change. This group, I am thoroughly out of patience with.[url][/url] matty go have a read on feedback... ignoring certain posters... kat really has no idea what he writes.......he only write nice stuff about everyone..and is never ever abusive........I am sure you have noticed... I just love posters who praise themselves out of the forum....whilst being the biggest bitchers going.. theres an old saying I need dna for this.. if only we could see ourselves as others see us..

You could well apply that saying to yourself, it would be interesting for Macca AP LW and other too ???

I suspect that it is the last thing people tend to think about - maybe even care about.

cods wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 6:25am:

Aussie wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 8:27pm: cods.....you miss the point. I posted: Quote: Fact is, there are women who allege Abbott assaulted them ~ one sexually, and the other physically in a most violent fashion. You responded with: [quote]oopppps... didntyou mean ALLEGEDLY??????? :)

yep your right..lol :P :P.

but not always.. :D.[/quote]

This is going to be a fun game you have started, cods.  That should be you're.

cods wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 6:05am:

what is slanderous.... SHE IS BEING INVESTIGATED

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 4:25pm:

it isnt  about gillard.. its more about WILSON

consistancy Cods, thats what I like about you ...  ;D ;D ;D

cods wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 6:11am:

matty wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:21pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:00pm: seriously, why does anybody argue anything with Cods? It's like trying to debate with a brainless parrot ... no matter what you say, it'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again... Coddsy want a cracker :D :D Cods has two things on her side that you don't - facts and common sense. got to laugh matty Benito calls his remarks debating... ::) just as well no one take him seriously.. have you seen anyone debate an actual topic with him.???. its all personal attacks its what he is well known for.. :D he even imagines I care what he thinks...if we agreed with him I would be disgusted....eee rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrk I dont mind the idiots picking on me... it makes me laugh...I reckon I hit a raw nerve...and they cant deal with it.....simple really... like them. ::)

I'm pretty sure I questioned why anyone would debate with you ... that would suggest that I don't debate with you. My comments to you are not debate. You've proven time and time again that no matter what the topic, any attempt at debate will invariably lead to one of about 5 or 6 lines, totally unrelated to the topic being discussed. 

hello Cocky
http://indonesian-parrot-project.org/images/photogallery/neglect/w4.jpg

matty wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:00pm: seriously, why does anybody argue anything with Cods? It's like trying to debate with a brainless parrot ... no matter what you say, it'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again... Coddsy want a cracker :D :D Cods has two things on her side that you don't - facts and common sense.

Coming from you, I'll take that as a ringing endorsement . ;D ;D ;D

cods wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 6:11am:

I reckon I hit a raw nerve

don't get to excited Cods ... no where near a raw nerve,

you are merely the subject of ridicule  ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 8:33am:

cods wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 6:11am: I reckon I hit a raw nerve don't get to excited Cods ... no where near a raw nerve, you are merely the subject of ridicule  ;D ;D ;D

And totally oblivious to it, gold. ;D ;D ;D

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 6:26am:

matty wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:21pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:00pm: seriously, why does anybody argue anything with Cods? It's like trying to debate with a brainless parrot ... no matter what you say, it'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again... Coddsy want a cracker :D :D Cods has two things on her side that you don't - facts and common sense. I see no need to insult Cods it is unneeded but really Matty could you have said anything sillier in that comparison. I would say that facts and common sense and among JS's stronger points.

WHy thank you kind Sir ....


although I do disagree in that I do believe that some people simply need to hear it as it is, otherwise they just won't get it ... if that means throwing in an odd insult, so be it.

The tax man would have to be interested in this whole affair also one would think.