Julia Gillard - liar

[uvar]

Here is another statement from S&G
<snip statement>

Yes, when I saw that I realised that (assuming it's true) I'd managed to fall for the implications anyway. I had taken it as a given that she'd left (whether quit, resigned or been politefully forced out) directly because of the interview or Wilson relationship. Apparently even that was mistaken.

I wonder if there's any short-term positive way to respond to this - I wouldn't be surprised if the only answer people like A.A. Alfie would accept is an admission of guilt, so what's the point of bothering? Of course, in a week or two when nothing eventuates as it has every single previous time this has been raised, people and the media will get bored and move on, and it won't matter.

I see Tony's on the bandwagon too, no shock there:

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says there are questions the Prime Minister needs to answer.

"I think there are real issues that the Prime Minister needs to address and if she would like to make a statement to the Parliament this week the Coalition would gladly facilitate it," he told a press conference in Western Sydney.

Since the only thing she'd do is deny it again and point out the lack of evidence I'm not sure why the Mad Monk is so enthusiastic.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, when I saw that I realised that (assuming it's true) I'd managed to fall for the implications anyway. I had taken it as a given that she'd left (whether quit, resigned or been politefully forced out) directly because of the interview or Wilson relationship. Apparently even that was mistaken.

I wonder if there's any short-term positive way to respond to this - I wouldn't be surprised if the only answer people like A.A. Alfie would accept is an admission of guilt, so what's the point of bothering?

As Alfie has said, this is fun. The destabilising of the Government is the whole point, it turns out irrelevant if it is true or not, the purpose has been served. It is no coincidence that Abbott is now calling for a return to the days of Howard, which means call for stability. If you can manufacture a series of crises, whether they are based on fact or fantasy is irrelevant, you are setting yourself up for a win at the next election. In fact, the timing of this is interesting, it has been forgotten about for years, yet it appears as if on schedule, now that the carbon tax is not harming the economy at all. In fact, while the rest of the world is going nowhere, the Australian economy is doing remarkably well under a Labor government in the most trying global economic conditions for about 80 years.

 

[uvar]

Pickering has posted Part VI of his series.

Within it he asks upward of 20 questions, forming nearly half the new entry; the answers to the vast majority of them would not prove or disprove his claims, and many are phrased assuming unproven allegations as factual. He again claims that his story is fact but provides no evidence to support this (and makes no mention of his stated use of poetic licence or melodrama to make it more interesting, both of which appear to be present within this entry as well). He specifically claims that Gillard is lying about several topics but provides no evidence to support this. The entry clearly wasn't spell/grammar-checked, and he repeatedly misspells the name of Nick Styant-Browne (granted, it looks to be a common mistake in several other news articles, but you wouldn't expect somebody who's been doing research on the topic to get it wrong). A small part of it is clearly marked as speculation on his part, but is still derogatory towards Gillard. He also makes several new claims without evidence, mostly about the present & future behaviour of Slater & Gordon.

In the next update,

[Part VII covers Shorten and the unions’ influence and further damning information from FOI. Also the history of the faceless men and how they run our Parliament without our knowledge and the way in which Slater & Gordon operates. There is so much more to this sordid little tale]

He took 750+ words to say nothing new in part six... with all the content he's expecting to cover, part seven might well rival War and Peace.

 

[lionking]

From Slater and Gordan:

''Upon the Slater and Gordon partnership learning of what has been described as the AWU-Bruce Wilson allegations in August 1995, it conducted an internal legal review as it would do, and has done, whenever any such allegations might be made,'' Mr Grech said. Ms Gillard had fully co-operated with the review and denied any wrongdoing.

''The review found nothing which contradicted the information provided by Ms Gillard at the time in relation to the AWU-Bruce Wilson allegations and which she has stated consistently since the allegations were first raised,'' he said.

This particularly nasty bit of muckraking can now be put to bed.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Slater and Gordon's reputation is taking a bit of a hammering and they are sensible to protect their interests.

I don't for a second imagine this has played itself out. In fact the S & G ads raise a few additional questions I'd have thought.


eta
In fact, a quick perusal of the news this morning confirms just that: This issue is far from going away and there are many questions outstanding.

 

[Her Grey Eminence]

From Slater and Gordan:



This particularly nasty bit of muckraking can now be put to bed.

If I may repost

:
''Upon the Slater and Gordon partnership learning of what has been described as the AWU-Bruce Wilson allegations in August 1995, it conducted an internal legal review as it would do, and has done, whenever any such allegations might be made,'' Mr Grech said. Ms Gillard had fully co-operated with the review and denied any wrongdoing.

''The review found nothing which contradicted the information provided by Ms Gillard at the time in relation to the AWU-Bruce Wilson allegations and which she has stated consistently since the allegations were first raised,'' he said.

As I understand it no one is around at Slater and Gordon who was a partner back then. The person who was a partner, but no longer at Slater and Gordon was quite clear that there was an interview and that as a result an understanding was reach that Gillard would resign.

In particular he stated that Julia Gillard was unable to completely rule out that Union monies had been spent on her house renovations. So Slater and Gordon's recent statement is simply saying that they found nothing to prove that Julia Gillard had union monies spent on her house renovations - although how they should be expected to thoroughly investigate this is unknown. They do not contradict that former partner's statement that Julia Gillard was unable to rule out that it had happened.

The other allegation is that Julia Gillard set up the corrupt legal instruments that allowed her then boyfriend to fleece the union.
It is admitted by all parties that:
a. The union was fleeced by her boyfriend, using legal and financial instruments
b. Julia Gillard provided legal work for her boyfriend in matters involving the AWU.
c. That she did not open a file on this work or keep any records. Or presumably bill him.
Rather like Bill Clinton saying I did not have sex with that woman because oral sex is not sex, Julia Gillard may be saying that because she did not herself shovel the money out of the union but simply enabled it she did nothing wrong.

I guess if you don't want people "muck racking" you should keep your files in order. Then again if you don't have any files then an internal review by Slater and Gordon isn't going to find anything either.

 

[uvar]

As I understand it no one is around at Slater and Gordon who was a partner back then. The person who was a partner, but no longer at Slater and Gordon was quite clear that there was an interview and that as a result an understanding was reach that Gillard would resign.

Gillard was also a partner at the same time, and she is quite clear about an alternate series of events. Evidently merely being present only means your story is trustworthy sometimes. It also seems unreasonable to assume a retelling decades later is more accurate than the S&G press release (which at worst is also a retelling of unknown accuracy, and could well be from official records and/or the actual transcript of the interview), or to use it to claim that Gillard's version - which has been repeated and remained consistent over the same period and agrees with S&G - is not correct.

So Slater and Gordon's recent statement is simply saying that they found nothing to prove that Julia Gillard had union monies spent on her house renovations - although how they should be expected to thoroughly investigate this is unknown. They do not contradict that former partner's statement that Julia Gillard was unable to rule out that it had happened.

The former partner's statement is also not proof that it had happened, and in the seventeen years since proof has remained elusive.

The other allegation is that Julia Gillard set up the corrupt legal instruments that allowed her then boyfriend to fleece the union.

Are you alleging that she knowingly set up the corrupt legal instruments? Are you ruling out the scenario that she was fooled by a conman she was in a relationship with (who was alleged to also be in several other relationships, and a marriage, at the same time)? Or perhaps the latter option would still be sufficient to claim Gillard is unfit to be PM and you don't care as long as she gets punished?

 

[Her Grey Eminence]

Are you alleging that she knowingly set up the corrupt legal instruments?

How the hell would I know? But surely it rests within the bound of possibilities

Are you ruling out the scenario that she was fooled by a conman she was in a relationship with (who was alleged to also be in several other relationships, and a marriage, at the same time)?

No, I am not ruling that out - it is possible that she destroyed all drafts, records, copies, letters and receipts with a genuine innocence of the ways of the world.

Or perhaps the latter option would still be sufficient to claim Gillard is unfit to be PM and you don't care as long as she gets punished?

Don't really mind one way or the other - I personally think Gillard will be leading Labor to the next election. I am just interested in it from a sociological view of things - what it is that makes our elites tick if you like.

 

[uvar]

Without anything new to report (except comments by Abbott that the Coalition had nothing to do with it - ETA, wait, I don't think even those are new), the news articles have already reduced to a trickle of insipid opinion pieces and syndicated content.

There's also been no mention of the allegations in Question Time thus far.

I guess they're all waiting for that Four Corners episode?

 

[Her Grey Eminence]

Without anything new to report (except comments by Abbott that the Coalition had nothing to do with it - ETA, wait, I don't think even those are new), the news articles have already reduced to a trickle of insipid opinion pieces and syndicated content.

There's also been no mention of the allegations in Question Time thus far.

I guess they're all waiting for that Four Corners episode?

Ahhh, the new Labour, its ok to siphon off union funds so long as no one can prove it.

 

[wombatwal]

This piece in the SMH today about the Gillard imbroglio.
I agree with Coorey, it needs to be sorted out ASAP.

It is possible that while Ms Gillard was cleared of any wrongdoing, it was mutually agreed she leave the firm given the poor optics of her association with Mr Wilson.
If so, that is not a hanging offence.
The details of her departure remains a grey area and one which could easily be cleared up.
Because while this exercise continues, it can only harm the Prime Minister.
She has a trust problem with the electorate and even if as she, the law firm and the lawyers who took on Mr Wilson attest, she did nothing wrong, it will continue to fuel the negative perceptions that already exist.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...rious-is-it-20120820-24i0p.html#ixzz2440xO736​

 

[uvar]

Ahhh, the new Labour, its ok to siphon off union funds so long as no one can prove it.

So bending street signs and indecent assault are also okay? (Both charges for which Tony Abbott faced court during his time in university; to summarise wikipedia, in the former the charges were proven but no conviction was made, and in the latter the charges were dismissed - in neither case was he found not guilty)

What about plagiarism? Deposing speakers? Bribery?

Not that I'm alleging those are true, I'm just reporting that others have. Has Abbott definitively proven he wasn't involved in all of those? He said so, but I don't know if I can trust him. I guess that means he might be guilty?


Let me try another tack. What evidence would be needed to satisfy you that there was no controversy and Gillard had done nothing wrong? (Assuming that Wilson was indeed guilty of misusing union funds)

 

[Her Grey Eminence]

So bending street signs and indecent assault are also okay? (Both charges for which Tony Abbott faced court during his time in university; to summarise wikipedia, in the former the charges were proven but no conviction was made, and in the latter the charges were dismissed - in neither case was he found not guilty)

What about plagiarism? Deposing speakers? Bribery?

Not that I'm alleging those are true, I'm just reporting that others have. Has Abbott definitively proven he wasn't involved in all of those? He said so, but I don't know if I can trust him. I guess that means he might be guilty?


Let me try another tack. What evidence would be needed to satisfy you that there was no controversy and Gillard had done nothing wrong? (Assuming that Wilson was indeed guilty of misusing union funds)

1. sigh, no bending street signs and indecent assault are not OK. Street sign bending is a minor misdemeanor and the facts surrounding the indecent assault are well established and the electorate can make up its own mind. If Tony Abbott had used his position as a minister to destroy the court files you might have a case.
2. I think the Slipper affair is a disgrace and causes me to take a dim view of the ethics and judgement of the Liberal party, my belief is that Tony Abbott would have had the sense to keep at arm's length from it. I will eagerly accept evidence to the contrary.
3. Plagiarism, couldn't care less, frankly. It is difficult to deny so it becomes part of the public record and the electorate can pass its own judgment.
4. Not concerned about the Wheat Board personally. I thought the UN sanctions regime against Iraq was an international disgrace and any means to pump more cash into Iraq was a morally good thing. If the AWB did give bribes to ensure contracts for Australian farmers, then good for them. The whole UN scheme was corrupt in any case.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL

5. I don't think lawyers should assist in siphoning off union funds and would be concerned if someone in high office was stonewalling about what she had actually done.

Your position is so long as it can't be proved it is OK by me. My position is whether or not it happened is important.

 

[uvar]

My position* is that the accusers are required to prove it, and Gillard is not required to disprove it. Otherwise, it deserves no more attention than any other unsubstantiated rumour. (People more sensible than Pickering are smart enough not to make it a specific allegation that could be proven or disproven, just imply Gillard was up to something dodgy and let others make the "obvious" conclusion.)

My examples about Tony Abbott were less about his actual behaviour or the truth of the claims, and more about whether you were applying a double standard. It's a shame you didn't suggest any evidence that would be acceptable; I hope this doesn't mean that no such evidence could exist and you've already decided on her guilt, which would make it largely pointless to respond.


In poisoning the well further, here's some more background on Larry Pickering from a more reputable source than the blog I linked before.

And here's some other so-called controversies that were pushed by the right wing and liebral media and turned out to be duds.

*This isn't something I came up with on my own; you might recognise it as the "burden of proof". It's... kind of important.

 

[lionking]

My position* is that the accusers are required to prove it, and Gillard is not required to disprove it. Otherwise, it deserves no more attention than any other unsubstantiated rumour. (People more sensible than Pickering are smart enough not to make it a specific allegation that could be proven or disproven, just imply Gillard was up to something dodgy and let others make the "obvious" conclusion.)

My examples about Tony Abbott were less about his actual behaviour or the truth of the claims, and more about whether you were applying a double standard. It's a shame you didn't suggest any evidence that would be acceptable; I hope this doesn't mean that no such evidence could exist and you've already decided on her guilt, which would make it largely pointless to respond.


In poisoning the well further, here's some more background on Larry Pickering from a more reputable source than the blog I linked before.

And here's some other so-called controversies that were pushed by the right wing and liebral media and turned out to be duds.

*This isn't something I came up with on my own; you might recognise it as the "burden of proof". It's... kind of important.

Good story about Pickering.

Pickering is commonly known as a cartoonist, but he's also an inveterate liar, a bankrupt conman with a seedy history of fleecing the gullible of millions of dollars while not paying his own bills.

Well there's one certain liar in this whole pile of muckraking crap.

 

[a_unique_person]

Your position is so long as it can't be proved it is OK by me. My position is whether or not it happened is important.

Here is a list of things I would like to know the truth of.

Did Julia Gillard :-
1. Engage in a mass stock trading fraud.
2. Kill an old man
3. Rob a bank
4. Get caught speeding.
5. Attempt to bribe a cop.
6. Not pay here taxes for ten years.

I have no evidence she did any of this. However, I do want the blogosphere and shock Jocks to raise all this matters, because it is important to know if any of them are true. I have no evidence that any of this is true, but it will be fun to see someone harassed and talked about maliciously.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And that might even have a mild sniff of validity if this issue had not been raised by former Attorney General and Labor MP Robert McClelland about 8 weeks ago.

Your shallow attempts to wallpaper this over and trivialise the defrauding of hundreds of thousands of dollars are both ridiculous and (on behalf of those cheated) disgusting.

 

[a_unique_person]

Since I didn't do that, I just call it not disgusting.

 

[a_unique_person]

The last thing this issue is about is the union members.

Don't believe me? Remember what the topic is?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Any comments on the validity or otherwise of Labor MP Robert McClelland and his speech in Parliament?