progressiveslol wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 8:45pm:


Lol, I think that you may be right, progs. I thought the same.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 5:09pm:


Boss to employee. Not ever or face harassment charges. Hence we are here talking about it.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 8:55pm:


What you are refusing to acknowledge is context.
Not just in the text messages, but also the work environment, personal interaction, life in general.
30% of couples meet in the workplace,

All of this is weighed up by the court whether civil or criminal.

If the law was interpted as narrow as you are suggesting, men would never win cases.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 6^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

Just to add some more info about the lightweights

MARK COLVIN: The Federal Speaker Peter Slipper met a setback today in his attempt to paint the man who's accused him of sexual harassment as part of a criminal conspiracy.

The former staffer James Ashby is suing Mr Slipper and the Commonwealth over alleged sexual harassment.

Mr Slipper claims Mr Ashby's case is vexatious and designed to "destroy or seriously damage" his reputation and political career.

And he alleges that Mr Ashby illegally sent copies of his former boss's diary to the former Howard government minister Mal Brough.

But a judge today agreed that Mr Ashby could delay filing papers because of the threat of prosecution.

The ABC's court reporter Jamelle Wells has been in court. She joins me now.

What was the central issue here?

JAMELLE WELLS: Well lawyers for James Ashby referred to comments for a start made by Federal Minister Anthony Albanese comparing the James Ashby case to Watergate and calling for Australian Federal Police to investigate the allegations that he leaked parts of that diary.

And they said because of these allegations and this possible investigation, he didn't have to give evidence that might incriminate him. The judge agreed and the judge, and I quote, said, "If we don't uphold those rights in our society, we live in a police state."

And Justice Stephen Rares hearing legal argument for this case today said that James Ashby doesn't have to give his name even if he's involved in or is suspected of any crime.

MARK COLVIN: So what kind of problem does that pose for Peter Slipper?

JAMELLE WELLS: Well Peter Slipper and the Commonwealth are trying to have this case thrown out because they allege that James Ashby conspired with not only his employer's political rivals but also with other staffers that he worked with to undermine his boss just before this case was lodged; that he deliberately set out to damage his name and to ruin his political career.

MARK COLVIN: And so they wanted Ashby to testify and now he doesn't have to testify?

JAMELLE WELLS: Well it's not looking that way and also it's not looking as though he'll be required to produce some documents that he was previously called on to produce.

MARK COLVIN: On the grounds of possible self-incrimination.

JAMELLE WELLS: That's right.

MARK COLVIN: That's what it hinged on today.

JAMELLE WELLS: Yeah.

MARK COLVIN: And what does the judge want to happen next?

JAMELLE WELLS: Well the judge referred to how long this has dragged on for today and he said this case has blown out of proportion. He referred to the cost involved for all the parties and he urged them to consider taking it back to mediation.

He said I can't enforce mediation, I can't order it but I urge you to go back and try to resolve it out of a major court case so that it doesn't distract from your lives.

And he seemed…

MARK COLVIN: Difficult to imagine how that could happen because an awful lot has been said, it's been very bitter and very, very public already, as you've alluded to.

JAMELLE WELLS: That's right and first up these parties weren't interested in mediation. That was something that was talked about very early on in the piece and they weren't interested in it at all.

But the judge also made a comment today about the low amount of money that will be gained from it. We don't know how much that will be but he said it won't be a significant amount of money that the Government and Peter Slipper are being sued for.

So he referred to that as well.

MARK COLVIN: Yes it's not necessarily the money I suppose, it's the reputation. Jemelle Wells, thankyou very much.

The shadow attorney general George Brandis has leapt on the judge's criticism of the Commonwealth's handling of the case. He joins me now.

So what have they done wrong?

GEORGE BRANDIS: Well what the Government has done wrong is politicise this case. They've politicised it by the Attorney General and other senior ministers, including Mr Albanese and Dr Emerson conducting a running commentary on the case in the media and personally attacking Mr Ashby.

So the effect of what they've done is as Justice Rares said in the court this morning has been to raise the stakes.

MARK COLVIN: How was it not political to start off with?

GEORGE BRANDIS: Well the Opposition has said all along that the Commonwealth should have defended this case as it would defend any other claim by an employee against an employer of sexual harassment.

This is, let us not forget what this case is about. This is a case in which James Ashby claims to have been sexually harassed by Peter Slipper and he brings the Commonwealth in because he says the Commonwealth didn't provide sufficient safeguards for him as a Commonwealth employee against the alleged conduct by Mr Slipper. Now -

MARK COLVIN: But there is politics woven right into to it. Mr Ashby was meeting Mark McArdle, an LNP Cabinet Minister. Mr Ashby's alleged to have unlawfully sent extracts of Mr Slipper's diary to the former federal minister Mal Brough.

How is it not political?

GEORGE BRANDIS: These allegations have all been made by the Commonwealth in this case.

MARK COLVIN: There are documents too.

GEORGE BRANDIS: Yeah, yeah. I'm not - I'm merely pointing out that by making these allegations and making that the issue in this case, the Commonwealth and, in particular, the Attorney General and other senior ministers have politicised the case so it cannot now be run as it ought to have been run as an orthodox sexual harassment case.

And in doing so, by raising all those issues, by politicising the case, they have, as the judge said today, raised the stakes and put the Commonwealth in a tactically disadvantageous position.

MARK COLVIN: They may have done that but journalists have plenty too. Are you telling me that the LNP in Queensland had nothing to do with Ashby's case?

GEORGE BRANDIS: I have no idea. I have no reason to believe that they did.

MARK COLVIN: You must have spoken to your colleagues in Queensland.

GEORGE BRANDIS: Well I've kept right away from this.

MARK COLVIN: Have you spoken to Mal Brough about it?

GEORGE BRANDIS: No I haven't.

MARK COLVIN: Have you spoken to Mark McArdle about it?

GEORGE BRANDIS: No I haven't. And for a very good reason I've kept right away from this and this is my point.

My point is that if the Commonwealth had conducted this as a model litigant which the Commonwealth ought to, as a piece of litigation in which sexual harassment allegations were being made rather than raise the stakes, to use the judge's words, by alleging all these political agendas then this case would have been, then the Commonwealth wouldn't have put itself in the tactically disadvantageous position that it now has.

MARK COLVIN: But if you've kept your hands clean and stayed well away from it, why didn't your colleagues in the LNP as well?

GEORGE BRANDIS: You'll have to ask them that question.

MARK COLVIN: But what I'm saying is isn't this a case of fault on both sides?

GEORGE BRANDIS: The point I make to you is this; the Commonwealth, to use the judge's word, raised the stakes in this case as a result of the Commonwealth's decision, and, in particular, as a result of the immaturity of the Attorney General Ms Roxon in publicly commenting on the case and publicly attacking Mr Ashby, the Commonwealth has raised a whole range of issues which in fact makes it more difficult for the Commonwealth now to defend the case.

MARK COLVIN: Thankyou very much George Brandis.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3540723.htm

Slipper is in the poo

Karnal wrote on Jul 7^th, 2012 at 12:41am:

well if Allen was raving on about it then matty must do it!

Thoughts?

Seems he wanted to be "harASSED" in a hotel room as well.

Seems the Hockster might have wanted to play too????

Quote:

The Liberals have gone real quite on Slipper & Thomson with Abbnott not even in the country.

You read the stories about Hockey, Doane, Palmer and News Ltd etc and find no mention of Pine and wonder how he and his meetings with Ashby all fit together and remember that right from day one Abbnott was dancing around the unasked question of how much he knew about it all saying that he could not be expected to know what each individual Liberal may have been doing in relation to organising Legal briefs.

Obviously he did actually know about it all or he would not have been able to correctly answer a question he was not asked.

Then we have the free legal representation once again from the Liberals and HR (Puff N Stuff) Nichols society’s favourite legal team, that's right the same group representing the Union whistle blowing suspect gratis also.

Normally when something stinks to high heaven like this very obviously does the correct reason is the obvious one.

However Justice Steven Rares in the Federal Court this morning said that the allegations of a criminal conspiracy from Mr Slipper and senior ministers meant that Mr Ashby could no longer be forced to make a submission against the allegations in the civil case because he may incriminate himself.

I doubt he would have come to this conclusion had the threat of self incrimination (and incrimination of others) not been a real likelihood.

john_g wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 3:24pm:


Well, we know that Matty has gone to New Zealand. Also, he wasn't sleeping well before he left. He made a number of typos.

He said he'll return after the next election. Is it possible there's some sort of conspiracy going on?