sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 13^th, 2013 at 4:52pm:



oh dear a good old web search eh...  that tells you where Tony Abbott was 24 hours of the day.  I have no doubt he cannot recollect where he's been everyday for the last year or so.
But...   it is more interesting that Tony's twitter feed no longer has days 28/29/30/31 March.... 

Grendel wrote on Jun 13^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

Really? You'd like to present the evidence of that? Or will ti be "go have a look" and quickly scorrow away?  As much as I  don't like how Van Onselen reports, he is very much one of the few who is not pro-either and instead is just like the electorate, wanting a decent prime minister who isn't a wankjob or just plain incompetent.

Regardless of whether it was true or not,, the email from the restaurant owner really took the wind out of the sails of Labor. They have nothing now, just speculation.

The media was buzzing all day yesterday about that menu.

The mock menu allegedly created for a Mal Brough fundraiser back in March.

The menu that refers to a number of Labor MPs ― but specifically to Prime Minister Julia Gillard in a highly offensive and sexist way.

And by “media”, I mean all the media.

Newspapers, TV, social media, radio ― it’s been everywhere,. Meanwhile, other stories  ‒ such as the 260 Target workers made redundant in Geelong ‒ seem to have slipped through the cracks.

Last night, there was a twist in the tale.

Apparently, Joe Richards ‒ the owner of the restaurant at which the fundraiser was held ‒ has claimed responsibility for the menu, and says it was an “in-joke” that was not used at the fundraiser at all.

As reported on The Age website, Richards wrote a letter to Brough explaining the situation after seeing it reported on the evening news.

Bullshit!

And here’s why:

At midday, this story, written by Latika Bourke, was released on the ABC website, with the headline screaming:

‘Liberal National Party candidate Mal Brough apologises for ‘offensive and sexist’ menu which mocked Julia Gillard’s body’.



The third paragraph of the article states:

‘Mr Brough says the menu was drawn up by a non-party member who thought it would be “humorous” and “didn’t mean any harm by it,” but is now “deeply apologetic”.’

So. at midday, Brough was aware that the menu had been drawn up by a non-party member, who was now deeply apologetic.

But wait … how could Brough have known this, if Richards didn’t contact him until later in the day?

Remember, Richards didn’t write his letter to Brough until after seeing the story on the evening news.

And in his letter, which was subsequently distributed by the LNP, he stated the following:

As you know no one at the dinner was privy to such a menu, and it is so unfortunate that an in-house joke between myself and my son has caused you great problems and embarrassment.

How, then, could Brough have known that Richards ‒ a non-party member ‒ was responsible for the menu when the ABC article was published at midday?

It doesn’t add up.

Brough made statements, reported at midday, containing details that he couldn’t have known until later in the day ― if he and Richards are to be believed.

Unless it is just a flimsy fabrication to protect a highly protected candidate.

I’ll let you be the judge of that.

According to today's Australian, Peter van Onselen received a copy of the menu and ignored it.

A senior writer on a pro Liberal newspaper receives a good story critical of the Libs and does nothing?

What a surprise....    

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Jun 13^th, 2013 at 12:48pm:



LOL

No it didn't.

Nobody believes a word of that email: not even the Libs.

Surely you're not that gullible.