bit_pattern
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,406
Why are you wasting your time, lionking?
Julia Gillard - liar
- Thread starter Hallo Alfie
- Start date
This AWU scandal certainly has some legs.
I thought it would die out due to a lack of evidence.
It certainly seems to be growing longer legs.
I don't know if Gillard knew about her ex-boyfriend stealing union funds to buy a house.
I don't know if Gillard helped her then boyfriend in conveyancing work for the house.
If Gillard knows she has not been truthful about her knowledge of the affair she should speak out and resign the Prime Minister-ship.
If she only thinks of herself she will stay put.
If she has the welfare of the party she will resign, that is if she is guilty.
Who will lead the party if she resigns, I do not know.
If the party wants a chance at the next election then Rudd is the obvious candidate, anyone else is too much of a risk.
Let's wait and see.
I thought it would die out due to a lack of evidence.
It certainly seems to be growing longer legs.
I don't know if Gillard knew about her ex-boyfriend stealing union funds to buy a house.
I don't know if Gillard helped her then boyfriend in conveyancing work for the house.
I saw the 7.30 report with Nick Styant-Browne, and the accusations that he made.
There is a Slater and Gordon conveyancing file headed Bruce Wilson, regarding a bank letter about mortgage insurance, saying "Ralph spoke to Julia Gillard."
If Gillard knows she has not been truthful about her knowledge of the affair she should speak out and resign the Prime Minister-ship.
If she only thinks of herself she will stay put.
If she has the welfare of the party she will resign, that is if she is guilty.
Who will lead the party if she resigns, I do not know.
If the party wants a chance at the next election then Rudd is the obvious candidate, anyone else is too much of a risk.
Let's wait and see.
Last edited:
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
And a nice little summary. Someone is thinking logically about this.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
It is a case of never mind the quality, feel the width. Or rather, the more we find out about the criminal behaviour of Wilson and Blewitt, the guiltier Gillard must be. Not logical reasoning.
All they were was an opinion. No evidence of anything. Styant-Brown thinks she knew more. That's it, he has an opinion. If you were to go to court with that, it would not be admissable as evidence. Scepticism requires evidence and logic, not opinions.
She resigned because her poor choice in boyfriend had caused her and the firm embarrassment. In her defence, the charismatic Wilson type of person often fools otherwise sensible women for a while.
Conveyancing is done by para-legals, in the name of a lawyer. The lawyer actually does nothing. The speaking would have been something of the nature of "I've done that conveyancing for you".
If "If" is all you have, then that's nothing. If she is secretly an alien seeking to destroy the human race, she should also resign.
There have also been claims that Gillard should have gone to the police. Try and make that a law and see how far you get. Lawyers are required to go to the police and dob in their clients when they know they are guilty of something. The legal fraternity would have a collective heart attack. The fact is, most companies experience fraud on a regular basis. On a regular basis, they hush it up, and shut it down. I worked for a large financial company for a while. An auditor told me tales of fraud that had been uncovered, and shut down, and people sacked. They would not go to the police, though.
I am not inferring anything of the kind. This is your faulty logic on what I wrote.
They are "iffs". But all of this is damaging to the Labor Party. The last thing I want is a Conservative Government lead by Abbott.
Gillard has to do what is best for the party, and, IFF she is guilty, she knows if she is, or not. She should do the right thing and resign.
I am not calling for her to resign.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
There is no evidence of wrongdoing on Gillard's part. There is a lot of noise, which is all about what other people have done. There is a lot of opinion, which is not evidence. In the old days of journalism, if there was something to find someone guilty of, then they would present the evidence. So far, all we get is innuendo and opinion, they haven't even finished the basic groundwork, yet are publishing. Perhaps she is guilty of something, when you get the story that she is, let me know. Until then, a note that someone spoke to Gillard, without any idea of what was discussed, is useless. Para-legals do routine conveyancing all the time without doing anything more than a formal signoff at the end. The lawyer does nothing other than sign their name to it.
If Abbott is guilty of anything, if Swann is guilty of anything, if anyone is guilty of anything, they should step aside. First of all, find her guilty of something.
Last edited:
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
I wonder what Freud would say?
That would depend on whose version of events you listen to. At the very least there are a number of discrepancies and answers are required to clear them up.
What we do know is that both sides of the political press are now running with it. There is a story there that might just bring down a PM.
I wonder if that's how Woodward and Bernstein went about it?
Well, well, well the man at the centre of this disgusting hate campaign against Gillard says she did nothing wrong:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...nd-defends-prime-minister-20121124-2a0vp.html
I trust this will shut up Abbott, Bishop and certain posters in this thread.
As I said, there is and has never been any evidence of wrong doing. It would be nice if the Coalition got back to policies. Too much to hope for I believe.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...nd-defends-prime-minister-20121124-2a0vp.html
I trust this will shut up Abbott, Bishop and certain posters in this thread.
As I said, there is and has never been any evidence of wrong doing. It would be nice if the Coalition got back to policies. Too much to hope for I believe.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
I wonder what Freud would say?
That would depend on whose version of events you listen to. At the very least there are a number of discrepancies and answers are required to clear them up.
What we do know is that both sides of the political press are now running with it. There is a story there that might just bring down a PM.
I wonder if that's how Woodward and Bernstein went about it?
Yes, it was, now that you mention it. They worked on that Watergate story extensively, till they had it the basic facts nailed down, then they published.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
About time he did the right thing by her. The media is more interested in the word of long time conman and sex predator like Blewitt. His own sister and ex-wife both hate him and say you can't trust a word he says.
As for policy, the Labor party this week released the proposed plan for the Murray-Darling, one of the most critical plans for the future of the South East of Australia. Hardly a word was said about it. What is this nation coming to when vital issues are relegated to second place behind guilt by association and hatred of non whites.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Nope. Completely wrong. There were quite a number of articles published across a number of papers prior to a full understanding and Nixon's resignation.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
No, there were a number of articles published prior to a full understanding of Nixon's, part, but they published an article that detailed the republican break in to the Democrat hotel room when they had evidence, which took quite a lot of work to find and confirm. Quit moving the goal posts. They published when they had evidence. If they wanted to publish an article about corruption that happened in the AWU nearly 20 years ago, with Wilson and Blewitt as the main protagonists, then that is the story they have evidence for.
Last edited:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The questions Gillard has to answer all appear to be questions she cannot answer, since she has no knowledge of that happened.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Here is a link to the original Watergate Story as published in the Washington Post.
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/woodstein/post/breakin_scan.html
It's a scan, so no quotes. Not a mention of Nixon, not a word. Just the evidence, just the facts.
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/woodstein/post/breakin_scan.html
It's a scan, so no quotes. Not a mention of Nixon, not a word. Just the evidence, just the facts.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
So articles were published before he was found guilty.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The article I linked to states the facts, Republicans organised for the Democrat rooms to be burgled. There is no mention of Nixon being involved. It is still not known if Nixon actually knew anything about it, as far as evidence goes. It is known he tried to cover it up. For that there is evidence, and it was that act for which he resigned.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Whatever. Your original point was to 'first of all, find her guilty of something'.
This is wrong on two counts (and we will agree to disagree on the first): articles were published about the issue prior to full exposure. Second, only a judge or jury will find anyone guilty of anything.
At the moment she is charged with nothing but bad judgement - she has been accused of this before and this episode does nothing to enhance that reputation.
This is wrong on two counts (and we will agree to disagree on the first): articles were published about the issue prior to full exposure. Second, only a judge or jury will find anyone guilty of anything.
At the moment she is charged with nothing but bad judgement - she has been accused of this before and this episode does nothing to enhance that reputation.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Not in a court of law guilty, evidence that says she has done something illegal guilty. The Watergate article makes no reference to Nixon because there was no evidence, even though I bet you they were wondering exactly that, and were working on evidence to link him to it.
How many people have exhibited bad judgement in choice of girlfriend or boyfriend? How about Abbott's girlfriend that he abandoned because he thought he had got her pregnant. I bet she regrets that, too.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Gillard has bad judgement accusations left and right. She has in integrity problem and concerns in many quarters about her honesty. This issue goes to the heart of same.
She was in a relationship with some self admitted crooks (one intimate).
She has shared the sheets with married men.
She breaks promises.
It appears has has misled her employer - they sacked her. Moreover an equity partner has categorically claimed she knew of the file and the conveyance. Who is lying here?
There is more to come and if she is found to have questions to answer she should answer them. If she has done the wrong thing she might have to resign.
If (as some suggest) they should just leave this issue alone, one would have to ask ''why?". Why should they leave it alone - they are more than entitled to dig and find the truth; that is what journalists do - it's their job.
Long may they dig. If we have a dishonest PM, then she should be exposed.
Ask yourself this, would you feel the same way if this was Abbott under scrutiny?
She was in a relationship with some self admitted crooks (one intimate).
She has shared the sheets with married men.
She breaks promises.
It appears has has misled her employer - they sacked her. Moreover an equity partner has categorically claimed she knew of the file and the conveyance. Who is lying here?
There is more to come and if she is found to have questions to answer she should answer them. If she has done the wrong thing she might have to resign.
If (as some suggest) they should just leave this issue alone, one would have to ask ''why?". Why should they leave it alone - they are more than entitled to dig and find the truth; that is what journalists do - it's their job.
Long may they dig. If we have a dishonest PM, then she should be exposed.
Ask yourself this, would you feel the same way if this was Abbott under scrutiny?
Last edited: