• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Julia Gillard - liar

lionking said:
Read krikketer's link. A decent summary.
Click to expand...

Please point the lie out - and remember we are talking about post 142.
And if you want to compare lies..... I am pretty certain the yabbie has a nice long list too that I could find on a blog somewhere. :)
 
lionking said:
What it means is Abbott is a liar of monumental proportions. You have deemed comments like this as off topic, but in a thread about the supposed lies of a leader on one side, it's fair enough to expose the proven lies of her main accuser. In US political threads this sort of thing happens all the time. It might be uncomfortable to face up to it, but Abbott is a liar.
Click to expand...

A self confessed liar at that. As he says, just make sure he puts anything he says down in writing. Pretty well nothing is.
 
uvar said:
Her Grey Eminence, you may have misunderstood. Several posts ago you stated:


I asked for clarification on the characteristics that you thought Gillard and Jackson had in common, where a 'characteristic' is generally understood as a distinguishing or distinctive feature and not a suggestion of irrational behaviour or accusation of a cover-up.

A list will suffice. For example:
  • Female
  • Elected to Australian Parliament
  • Their first and last names start with consonants
Although I would assume yours will be somewhat more specific. I understand that characteristics can be subjective and won't necessarily expect evidence for each, though I would expect you to be able to at least provide reasons.
Click to expand...

Hmm, well lets start with the characteristic that really sets them out from the crowd:
Both seem highly skillful in finding ways to move monies from Union accounts into campaigning slush fund.

That's a fairly specialized skill - it would be a bit like having two senior anglo-celtic politicians fluent in mandarin
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Please point the lie out - and remember we are talking about post 142.
And if you want to compare lies..... I am pretty certain the yabbie has a nice long list too that I could find on a blog somewhere. :)
Click to expand...

Evasion noted. Abbott, worst opposition leader ever, and serial liar.
 
Pertaining to 142, what lie exactly?
Please point it out and perhaps we could actually discuss it. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/20...tml?site=melbourne&program=melbourne_mornings

no transcript or recording. John Faine was active in the legal scene at the time these events happened. According to him, the real reason for Gillard leaving S&G was the partners unhappiness with the section that Gillard was a junior member of at the time, and principally to do with the lawyer in charge of that section. Gillard was collateral damage. Her relationship with Wilson was only incidental, but was investigated. Why didn't she open a file? Lawyers often help out friends and family as a favour, even if this officially frowned on. If you were doing someone a favour, you definitely wouldn't open up a formal file.

As she said to Paul Kelly, have you any specific allegations to make. He had none.
 
Did you not catch the question Kelly asked her?
There was no allegation, there was a question (and presumably more to follow). For these she had no answers, just anger and her own false allegation against Kelly - was she wrong or lying I wonder?

I was embarrassed for her. Sad really, apparently she used to be quite a nice person. Affable, popular with both men and women, easy going. ;)
 
A.A. Alfie said:
I was embarrassed for her. Sad really, apparently she used to be quite a nice person. Affable, popular with both men and women, easy going. ;)
Click to expand...

And a successful, powerful and competent woman. A clear target for many on the right.
 
Thanks for your reply, Her Grey Eminence. I can't say that I agree with you, but given that I've held the position that there's no evidence for that claim since I entered this thread and nobody has provided any evidence to support it I doubt that will come as a surprise.

Krikkiter, that's a fantastic blog post! Amazed how much I'd forgotten and I think I even learned a thing or two as well.

lionking, in the section of A.A. Alfie's post you quoted (which I wouldn't otherwise see) I'd hazard that the phrasing and wink is meant to imply that Gillard was bisexual and promiscuous. Oh, A.A. Alfie, you so sneaky! Or maybe you're just very pious.

Anyway, back to the bleach-pouring. I'm purposely not linking to them, but they're probably not that hard to find if you really care. They're basically just a few hundred words of Gish-galloping **** anyway.



Pickering's Part VII is out! Delightful! Remember, last time he said that this would address
...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
Click to expand...

The very first sentence in part 7 is obviously false, and not very civil. Pickering refers to a "continuous stream of information" which I'm not aware of, unless he's counting the few statements supporting Gillard's story. He again makes various claims about Gillard's behaviour that aren't backed up by anything at all. He again claims that Bernard Murphy took part, and that his name was provided to The Australian but redacted (apparently referring to Nick Styant-Browne's 'exclusive' statement which Peter Gordon has put in somewhat of a different light). He makes statements about the content of Gillard's interview (he quotes a phrase which doesn't seem to be in any newspaper articles), which suggests either he has the transcript or is lying. He claims that Bernard Murphy's selection as a Federal Court judge was a favour to keep him quiet (or more accurately in this case, he doesn't claim, but merely asks "why?") He repeats various unsubstantiated claims. He makes some other claims that I don't know the plausibility of since I don't know about internal procedure of legal firms, but you can guess which way I'm leaning. Finally, he repeats that Nick Styant-Browne's version of events (again, see Peter Gordon's statement for context on that) is the correct one, except for the change that Gillard is guilty.

New evidence to support these and previous claims: Nil.

Discussion of
Shorten ... and further damning information from FOI
Click to expand...
Apparently nil; maybe some of the information is from FOI but you'd think that would be bigger news. Plus I think legal documents are pretty restricted even so... and I'm not even sure who would even have relevant information outside S&G and AWU, neither of which are government agencies in the first place. And of course it would be pretty stupid to keep this stuff secret for decades and then let it slip due to a FOI request. But maybe I'm wrong!

He's also written a separate piece about the FACELESS MEN and unions.
The start is largely background and history about Pickering, and how he knows the guy who came up with the phrase. (Referring to the 36 delegates at the ALP conference before the 1963 election). He then immediately claims that all 36 delegates were "unelected, unknown unionists" - since I don't have a list of the 1963 delegates it might be true but Pickering doesn't bother to provide proof anyway. He points out that Rudd was the first to directly select his ministers but makes it sound like the faceless men did it previously (as opposed to the Labor caucus). And, oh, the entire ALP is massively corrupt and working with similarly corrupt unions*. Then in a little tangent:
Currently, the most talentless, inarticulate moron in the Labor Party is the Federal Agriculture Minister, Joe Ludwig.
Click to expand...
Better harden up Joe, Larry Pickering's coming for you! Anyway, he then claims that Kevin Rudd only became leader because the unions put all the actually-talented people elsewhere, and he was later deposed solely because of faceless men** who decided to replace him with "Socialist Left" Gillard even before an internal poll was done (which they skewed). Gillard is now going to be deposed by the faceless men because she didn't keep her promises, or something.

Now, I'm not denying that some ALP members do have close ties with unions, but to claim that the majority of them do, and are corrupt, and the unions they're working for are corrupt... it's just ridiculous. I almost long for the days when this story involved only a handful of people.

*Well, maybe not the entire ALP, but it's a pretty broad claim:
You see, the Labor Party is the creation of unions and is jealously guarded as the political arm of power-brokers. Those who do well within the union structure are rewarded with one of many inner-suburban “safe” seats. Until recently a Labor Prime Minister was unable to even choose his Ministers.

The use of slush funds and branch stacking determines who wins pre-selection for every safe seat. Talent or executive ability is a secondary requirement once you have the union boss’s nod.
Click to expand...

**The only time he actually uses the phrase "faceless men" is as part of the potted history lesson, but it's pretty clear that he's applying it to the apparently mysterious union power brokers like Bill Ludwig (who he names specifically, so can't be that faceless).
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Did you not catch the question Kelly asked her?
There was no allegation, there was a question (and presumably more to follow). For these she had no answers, just anger and her own false allegation against Kelly - was she wrong or lying I wonder?

I was embarrassed for her. Sad really, apparently she used to be quite a nice person. Affable, popular with both men and women, easy going. ;)
Click to expand...

That's all this is, an embarrassing incident for her years ago getting the biggest beat up in the press this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom