Apology to the Prime Minister From: The Australian August 23, 2012 10:05AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail
Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?
Tweet thisAN article in today's The Australian reported that Prime Minister Julia Gillard had set up a trust fund for her then boyfriend 17 years ago.
This is wrong.

The Australian apologises for the error.



Caught out and having to grovel to Gillard eh?  What will the rightards say?

Quote:

Speaking in depth for the first time on the issue, Ms Gillard - who was an industrial lawyer at the time of the contentious events - said she understood that she was helping to set up an association that could engage in fund-raising. Ms Gillard said: ‘‘I had taken the view over the past few days that given no new assertions of any worth have been made that I should not dignify this campaign with a response either. However, this morning something changed on that. ‘‘The Australian newspaper republished a false and highly defamatory claim about my conduct in relation to these matters 17 years ago.’’ The Australian has since retracted one of the story's claims and it has made an apology to the Prime Minister.

Quote:

Ms Gillard said the offending allegations were first published during the federal election in 2007 and on that occasion the claims were also retracted and apologised for. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-claims-shes-victim-of-very-sexist-smear-campaign-20120823-24o31.html#ixzz24LMLCJmG

This is the 2nd time they have published then retracted & said Sorry.

bugger'em Julia they obviously think the laws covering defamation do not apply to them.

Reject the apology & sue them.

lisa.greek wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 3:02pm:

Apology to the Prime Minister From: The Australian August 23, 2012 10:05AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these? Tweet thisAN article in today's The Australian reported that Prime Minister Julia Gillard had set up a trust fund for her then boyfriend 17 years ago. This is wrong. The Australian apologises for the error. Caught out and having to grovel to Gillard eh?  What will the rightards say?

Link?

I'd rather see a clarification than a retraction.
Perhaps the Australian would be better off shyign away from specifics, and instead run with stories such as "gillard is a weak willed bitch" or "Gillard refuses to accept any blame for her actions".  It's not defamation if it's true.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 3:22pm:

lisa.greek wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 3:02pm: Apology to the Prime Minister From: The Australian August 23, 2012 10:05AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these? Tweet thisAN article in today's The Australian reported that Prime Minister Julia Gillard had set up a trust fund for her then boyfriend 17 years ago. This is wrong. The Australian apologises for the error. Caught out and having to grovel to Gillard eh?  What will the rightards say? Link?

For you - anything.  There is one for the Australian fish and chip wrapper, but this one is as good

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-23/pm-fires-back-as-australian-issues-apology/4218092

She has also spent about an hour this afternoon in a press conference in front of journos making a statement and then answering every question they put to her. I caught about the last 15 minutes and she certainly didn't dodge any questions in that time.

Ms Gillard said the offending allegations were first published during the federal election in 2007 and on that occasion the claims were also retracted and apologised for.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-claims-shes-victim-of-very-sexist-smear-campaign-20120823-24o31.html#ixzz24LMLCJmG


Cant link it up like a youtube clip but follow the link to the full 49 minute press conference.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 3:19pm:

Reject the apology & sue them.

In answer to one question about people make allegations against her she said it doesn't matter what evidence she produces, what statements she makes there will still be those who will still continue their mindless campaigns against her.

Specifically on Pickering and suing she made the point that she could chase him through the courts but to what purpose? He's a bankrupt. He could be found guilty half a dozen times and it wouldn't affect him materially so why bother?

Gist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 3:37pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 3:19pm: Reject the apology & sue them. In answer to one question about people make allegations against her she said it doesn't matter what evidence she produces, what statements she makes there will still be those who will still continue their mindless campaigns against her. Specifically on Pickering and suing she made the point that she could chase him through the courts but to what purpose? He's a bankrupt. He could be found guilty half a dozen times and it wouldn't affect him materially so why bother?

LOL.  Yeah - she's "being the bigger person" and leaving it be.  I'm sure it has nothing to do with her worrying about the consequences if her past ever comes to light.  Nothing at all....

No PM is really ever going to sue someone. It wouldd be a completely bad and damaging look. You can say pretty much whatever you want about them and get away with it.

Gist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 3:37pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 3:19pm: Reject the apology & sue them. In answer to one question about people make allegations against her she said it doesn't matter what evidence she produces, what statements she makes there will still be those who will still continue their mindless campaigns against her. Specifically on Pickering and suing she made the point that she could chase him through the courts but to what purpose? He's a bankrupt. He could be found guilty half a dozen times and it wouldn't affect him materially so why bother?

I was more referring to The Australian.

Publish,retract,apologise
Publish retract apologise

Says to me they didn't really mean it when they said sorry.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 3:42pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 3:37pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 3:19pm: Reject the apology & sue them. In answer to one question about people make allegations against her she said it doesn't matter what evidence she produces, what statements she makes there will still be those who will still continue their mindless campaigns against her. Specifically on Pickering and suing she made the point that she could chase him through the courts but to what purpose? He's a bankrupt. He could be found guilty half a dozen times and it wouldn't affect him materially so why bother? I was more referring to The Australian. Publish,retract,apologise Public retract apologise Says to me they didn't really mean it when they said sorry.

Yep, understood. I don't ever see a printed newspaper but you'd have to question where the retraction goes. From what I've heard, headline stories seem to get retracted up the back sandwiched in some bit of the paper that nobody reads in small print. I've often thought that the media should be forced to retract articles in a similar position to where the original story was printed - and devote similar column inches and font sizes to the retraction. That might make them think when they have to put the retraction on page 1.

Anyway, I was just taking the opportunity to expand your thought a little because I know there are those here who have been pushing that particular barrow about suing Pickering.

Gist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 3:50pm:

Anyway, I was just taking the opportunity to expand your thought a little because I know there are those here who have been pushing that particular barrow about suing Pickering.

Pickering is just another Corporate Whitey/Prevailing.
Probably insane, amusing most times, a little scary at others.


Just part of the colourful world of the internet.

Something that really gets me is that Gillard Labor and supoorters of the ALP whinge about the 'right wing that is out to get them. When you look at it it's pretty hard to still consider the ALP left wing they're almost aas right as the Coalition. Anyone else find this irony really strange?

And I still believe she's done wrong anyway her word means nothing to me now after the carbon tax lie.

lisa.greek wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 3:02pm:

Apology to the Prime Minister From: The Australian August 23, 2012 10:05AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these? Tweet thisAN article in today's The Australian reported that Prime Minister Julia Gillard had set up a trust fund for her then boyfriend 17 years ago. This is wrong. The Australian apologises for the error. Caught out and having to grovel to Gillard eh?  What will the rightards say?

i don't beleive ya and i never ever will believe ya!
NOT UNTIL IT'S ON THE FRONT PAGE!

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Something that really gets me is that Gillard Labor and supoorters of the ALP whinge about the 'right wing that is out to get them. When you look at it it's pretty hard to still consider the ALP left wing they're almost aas right as the Coalition. Anyone else find this irony really strange? And I still believe she's done wrong anyway her word means nothing to me now after the carbon tax lie.

How do you feel about Abbott's litany of lies & half truths?
Don't bother I know you fail to see anything of the sort so will come back with
"what Lies"
yawn.

As for the rest quite a few posters here have been saying exactly that for over 2 years now.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 3:54pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 3:50pm: Anyway, I was just taking the opportunity to expand your thought a little because I know there are those here who have been pushing that particular barrow about suing Pickering. Pickering is just another Corporate Whitey/Prevailing. Probably insane, amusing most times, a little scary at others. Just part of the colourful world of the internet.

LOL  ;D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 4:10pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:05pm: Something that really gets me is that Gillard Labor and supoorters of the ALP whinge about the 'right wing that is out to get them. When you look at it it's pretty hard to still consider the ALP left wing they're almost aas right as the Coalition. Anyone else find this irony really strange? And I still believe she's done wrong anyway her word means nothing to me now after the carbon tax lie. How do you feel about Abbott's litany of lies & half truths? Don't bother I know you fail to see anything of the sort so will come back with "what Lies" yawn. As for the rest quite a few posters here have been saying exactly that for over 2 years now.

I don't like anyone lying but so far Abbott hasn't had the chance to lie as PM. Glad. i'm not the only one to think it but I haven't seen anyone else say it understandably as I've been on this site for about a month only. Labor still considers itself a left-wing party, don't and can't see why.

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 4:26pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:10pm: sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:05pm: Something that really gets me is that Gillard Labor and supoorters of the ALP whinge about the 'right wing that is out to get them. When you look at it it's pretty hard to still consider the ALP left wing they're almost aas right as the Coalition. Anyone else find this irony really strange? And I still believe she's done wrong anyway her word means nothing to me now after the carbon tax lie. How do you feel about Abbott's litany of lies & half truths? Don't bother I know you fail to see anything of the sort so will come back with "what Lies" yawn. As for the rest quite a few posters here have been saying exactly that for over 2 years now. I don't like anyone lying but so far Abbott hasn't had the chance to lie as PM. Glad. i'm not the only one to think it but I haven't seen anyone else say it understandably as I've been on this site for about a month only. Labor still considers itself a left-wing party, don't and can't see why.

sexy has nada, lol!

well i saw about 15 minutes of her press conference and surprise surprise she was very good.

she was highly agitated, spoke very quickly, sounded very intelligent, showed she has a very good brain.

why cant she talk like this all the time.  why the boring monotone wooden speech  we usually hear. i think she needs to fire up more often, get some grit , speak fast, dont stand in front of the mike with the brain cogs clunking away, carefully choosing her words.

she was quite impressive and almost contemptuous of the journos,  good show

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 4:26pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:10pm: sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:05pm: Something that really gets me is that Gillard Labor and supoorters of the ALP whinge about the 'right wing that is out to get them. When you look at it it's pretty hard to still consider the ALP left wing they're almost aas right as the Coalition. Anyone else find this irony really strange? And I still believe she's done wrong anyway her word means nothing to me now after the carbon tax lie. How do you feel about Abbott's litany of lies & half truths? Don't bother I know you fail to see anything of the sort so will come back with "what Lies" yawn. As for the rest quite a few posters here have been saying exactly that for over 2 years now. I don't like anyone lying but so far Abbott hasn't had the chance to lie as PM. Glad. i'm not the only one to think it but I haven't seen anyone else say it understandably as I've been on this site for about a month only. Labor still considers itself a left-wing party, don't and can't see why.

The lie that has apparently brought the country to it knees.
Was not uttered by the PM
Gillard was not PM when stating those words, she was the leader of a party contesting the election.
Parliament is dissolved & in caretaker mode from when the PM leaves the GG.
It's the reason they go there, to ask the GG to dissolve parliament.


Quote:

In summary, the Governor-General has many important constitutional, ceremonial and community duties to perform. For example, the Governor-General: • dissolves the Parliament and issues writs for new elections; • commissions the Prime Minister and appoints other Ministers after elections; • gives assent to laws when they have been passed by the two Houses of Parliament – the Senate and the House of Representatives**; • acts on the advice of Ministers through the Executive Council to issue regulations and proclamations under existing laws; to appoint Federal Judges; to appoint Ambassadors and High Commissioners to overseas countries, to appoint other senior Government officials; to issue Royal Commissions of Inquiry; and other matters, as required by particular legislation; • authorises many other executive decisions by Ministers such as approving treaties with foreign governments.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 4:35pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:26pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:10pm: sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:05pm: Something that really gets me is that Gillard Labor and supoorters of the ALP whinge about the 'right wing that is out to get them. When you look at it it's pretty hard to still consider the ALP left wing they're almost aas right as the Coalition. Anyone else find this irony really strange? And I still believe she's done wrong anyway her word means nothing to me now after the carbon tax lie. How do you feel about Abbott's litany of lies & half truths? Don't bother I know you fail to see anything of the sort so will come back with "what Lies" yawn. As for the rest quite a few posters here have been saying exactly that for over 2 years now. I don't like anyone lying but so far Abbott hasn't had the chance to lie as PM. Glad. i'm not the only one to think it but I haven't seen anyone else say it understandably as I've been on this site for about a month only. Labor still considers itself a left-wing party, don't and can't see why. The lie that has apparently brought the country to it knees. Was not uttered by the PM Gillard was not PM when stating those words, she was the leader of a party contesting the election. Parliament is dissolved & in caretaker mode from when the PM leaves the GG. It's the reason they go there, to ask the GG to dissolve parliament. Quote: In summary, the Governor-General has many important constitutional, ceremonial and community duties to perform. For example, the Governor-General: • dissolves the Parliament and issues writs for new elections; • commissions the Prime Minister and appoints other Ministers after elections; • gives assent to laws when they have been passed by the two Houses of Parliament – the Senate and the House of Representatives**; • acts on the advice of Ministers through the Executive Council to issue regulations and proclamations under existing laws; to appoint Federal Judges; to appoint Ambassadors and High Commissioners to overseas countries, to appoint other senior Government officials; to issue Royal Commissions of Inquiry; and other matters, as required by particular legislation; • authorises many other executive decisions by Ministers such as approving treaties with foreign governments.

The bottom line is she said no carbon tax then brought one in. End of story for me.

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 4:40pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:35pm: sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:26pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:10pm: sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:05pm: Something that really gets me is that Gillard Labor and supoorters of the ALP whinge about the 'right wing that is out to get them. When you look at it it's pretty hard to still consider the ALP left wing they're almost aas right as the Coalition. Anyone else find this irony really strange? And I still believe she's done wrong anyway her word means nothing to me now after the carbon tax lie. How do you feel about Abbott's litany of lies & half truths? Don't bother I know you fail to see anything of the sort so will come back with "what Lies" yawn. As for the rest quite a few posters here have been saying exactly that for over 2 years now. I don't like anyone lying but so far Abbott hasn't had the chance to lie as PM. Glad. i'm not the only one to think it but I haven't seen anyone else say it understandably as I've been on this site for about a month only. Labor still considers itself a left-wing party, don't and can't see why. The lie that has apparently brought the country to it knees. Was not uttered by the PM Gillard was not PM when stating those words, she was the leader of a party contesting the election. Parliament is dissolved & in caretaker mode from when the PM leaves the GG. It's the reason they go there, to ask the GG to dissolve parliament. Quote: In summary, the Governor-General has many important constitutional, ceremonial and community duties to perform. For example, the Governor-General: • dissolves the Parliament and issues writs for new elections; • commissions the Prime Minister and appoints other Ministers after elections; • gives assent to laws when they have been passed by the two Houses of Parliament – the Senate and the House of Representatives**; • acts on the advice of Ministers through the Executive Council to issue regulations and proclamations under existing laws; to appoint Federal Judges; to appoint Ambassadors and High Commissioners to overseas countries, to appoint other senior Government officials; to issue Royal Commissions of Inquiry; and other matters, as required by particular legislation; • authorises many other executive decisions by Ministers such as approving treaties with foreign governments. The bottom line is she said no carbon tax then brought one in. End of story for me.

hey, fair enough: pity it's a carbon price!!  :D :D

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 4:40pm:

The bottom line is she said no carbon tax then brought one in. End of story for me.

So what?

... wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 3:27pm:

I'd rather see a clarification than a retraction. Perhaps the Australian would be better off shyign away from specifics, and instead run with stories such as "gillard is a weak willed bitch" or "Gillard refuses to accept any blame for her actions".  It's not defamation if it's true.

ELVIS WAS A PEDO: THAT TRUTH HURTS!!  :D :D :D

My question is,

if she did nothing wrong as she claims.

Why did she resign from her position when she had no other job to go to?? why did she not seek work in any other legal practice??

Shes as dam guilty as sin.

woof woof wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 5:11pm:

My question is, if she did nothing wrong as she claims. Why did she resign from her position when she had no other job to go to?? why did she not seek work in any other legal practice?? Shes as dam guilty as sin.

WOOF WOOF I'M A REAL ESTATE AGENTS SON................................... OH, AND I SMOKE AND SELL CRACK TO PAY OFF DADDYS SPARE RENTAL!

  ;D ;D ;D ;D

LUCKY FOR ME MY MATE TAKES SERIOUS BEATINGS TO GET THE GOOD STUFFBECOZ I'M A WOOFTER..................  ::)

woof woof wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 5:11pm:

My question is, if she did nothing wrong as she claims. Why did she resign from her position when she had no other job to go to?? why did she not seek work in any other legal practice?? Shes as dam guilty as sin.

Hundreds of people resign from jobs every day..they must all be criminals  :D

Gist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 5:01pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:40pm: The bottom line is she said no carbon tax then brought one in. End of story for me. So what?

So she's not getting my vote and she's not getting the votes of the vast majority of my friends and family most f whom have voted Labor all of their lives up until this year's election.

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 5:25pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 5:01pm: sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 4:40pm: The bottom line is she said no carbon tax then brought one in. End of story for me. So what? So she's not getting my vote and she's not getting the votes of the vast majority of my friends and family most f whom have voted Labor all of their lives up until this year's election.

sexy beast has nada lol

another diversionry comment from the resident deflecter/diversionist???

why did she quit, and given she quit after the firms investigation into her actions she claims she did nothing wrong, if the firm came to that same conclusion why did she resign, fact is they state dthey took a very dim veiw of what she did, the loanbehold she resigns???


walks like a duck talks like a duck goes quack quack its a duck.

Your dishonourable PM is a corrupt lying peice of chit.

woof woof wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 5:27pm:

another diversionry comment from the resident deflecter/diversionist??? why did she quit, and given she quit after the firms investigation into her actions she claims she did nothing wrong, if the firm came to that same conclusion why did she resign, fact is they state dthey took a very dim veiw of what she did, the loanbehold she resigns??? walks like a duck talks like a duck goes quack quack its a duck. Your dishonourable PM is a corrupt lying peice of chit.

Congratulations! That rant wins you a badge!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ktNOKy3AcZ4/TBMtCMGo-VI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/QQU_1sg4fSY/s400/Dummy+Spit+award.jpg

woof woof has never resigned from a job?
That seems a little odd to me  :D

adelcrow wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 5:42pm:

woof woof has never resigned from a job? That seems a little odd to me  :D

I guess woof woof must've been fired every time. I've resigned from lots of jobs, usually because I have either (a) found a better paid job or (b) got completely jack of the management or (c) both.

Gist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 5:44pm:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 5:42pm: woof woof has never resigned from a job? That seems a little odd to me  :D I guess woof woof must've been fired every time. I've resigned from lots of jobs, usually because I have either (a) found a better paid job or (b) got completely jack of the management or (c) both.

Its all very odd..I wonder if woof woof has ever had more than one job or any job for that matter.

Have been doing the google.  But,  can't find where Gillard went after Slater & Gordon.  There was some recent mention on TV about it.....but I can't find it.  Anyone?

Aussie wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 5:47pm:

Have been doing the google.  But,  can't find where Gillard went after Slater & Gordon.  There was some recent mention on TV about it.....but I can't find it.  Anyone?

Dunno..but I bet Abbott has only ever had taxpayer funded jobs

Aussie wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 5:47pm:

Have been doing the google.  But,  can't find where Gillard went after Slater & Gordon.  There was some recent mention on TV about it.....but I can't find it.  Anyone?

She was unemployed for 6 months, then became Chief of Staff to Steve Bracks.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 5:51pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 5:47pm: Have been doing the google.  But,  can't find where Gillard went after Slater & Gordon.  There was some recent mention on TV about it.....but I can't find it.  Anyone? Dunno..but I bet Abbott has only ever had taxpayer funded jobs

No he hasn't, halfwit.

Aussie wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 5:47pm:

Have been doing the google.  But,  can't find where Gillard went after Slater & Gordon.  There was some recent mention on TV about it.....but I can't find it.  Anyone?

Yes and it's an interesting answer. In fact, I'd presume to say that it answers the question as to why she left the firm. But don't tell woof woof!

Shane B wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 5:52pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 5:47pm: Have been doing the google.  But,  can't find where Gillard went after Slater & Gordon.  There was some recent mention on TV about it.....but I can't find it.  Anyone? She was unemployed for 6 months, then became Chief of Staff to Steve Bracks.

DOH! You spoiled it!

She took leave from the firm in 1995 to contest the Senate ticket for Labor but didn't get in. She then got the job Shane mentioned.

was the job she was given a pay off for the slush fund she setup benefited from.

See she said she can't deny she benefited from the account she setup, but if she didn't do anything wrong, why would she get any benmefit from the slush fund??

See on one hand when they were questioning her on the slush fund, she says I can't deny I did not benefit from, meaning she benefited from it, now she says she did nothing wrong, but she's admitted to benefitting from an illegal set up slush fund which she set up, but she says she did nothing wrong, then she quits after an internal investigation, if she did nothing wrong she'd not have quit and been unemployed for 6 months??

She is as guilty as sin, look at the ppl involved in the slushfund and who knew about it and have a look at the positions she's given them???

Jobs for keeping your mouths shut???

be good when she is in gaol.

woof woof wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 6:30pm:

was the job she was given a pay off for the slush fund she setup benefited from. See she said she can't deny she benefited from the account she setup, but if she didn't do anything wrong, why would she get any benmefit from the slush fund?? See on one hand when they were questioning her on the slush fund, she says I can't deny I did not benefit from, meaning she benefited from it, now she says she did nothing wrong, but she's admitted to benefitting from an illegal set up slush fund which she set up, but she says she did nothing wrong, then she quits after an internal investigation, if she did nothing wrong she'd not have quit and been unemployed for 6 months?? She is as guilty as sin, look at the ppl involved in the slushfund and who knew about it and have a look at the positions she's given them??? Jobs for keeping your mouths shut??? be good when she is in gaol.

Why does anyone bother engaging with this idiot?

woof woof wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 6:30pm:

was the job she was given a pay off for the slush fund she setup benefited from. See she said she can't deny she benefited from the account she setup, but if she didn't do anything wrong, why would she get any benmefit from the slush fund?? See on one hand when they were questioning her on the slush fund, she says I can't deny I did not benefit from, meaning she benefited from it, now she says she did nothing wrong, but she's admitted to benefitting from an illegal set up slush fund which she set up, but she says she did nothing wrong, then she quits after an internal investigation, if she did nothing wrong she'd not have quit and been unemployed for 6 months?? She is as guilty as sin, look at the ppl involved in the slushfund and who knew about it and have a look at the positions she's given them??? Jobs for keeping your mouths shut??? be good when she is in gaol.

Yes, Woof Woof, but Matty will get a good job when Mr Abbott gets in. What goes around comes around. Matty has been tireless in his attacks on the carbon tax. He wasn't getting much sleep and needed to move to New Zealand. He was making typos all over the place.

Sexy Beast has been following the argument. I think Matty would make a great climate commissioner or something like that.

Thoughts?

I don't see why The Australian should apologise. If anything, she should go to the GG to call an early election and then resign as PM. She's a disgrace.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 6:45pm:

I don't see why The Australian should apologise. If anything, she should go to the GG to call an early election and then resign as PM. She's a disgrace.

Right. So the next time the ABC does a job on Tony Abbott, he should resign as opposition leader.

Excellent logic there, AP.

Enquiring mind wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 6:40pm:

woof woof wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 6:30pm: was the job she was given a pay off for the slush fund she setup benefited from. See she said she can't deny she benefited from the account she setup, but if she didn't do anything wrong, why would she get any benmefit from the slush fund?? See on one hand when they were questioning her on the slush fund, she says I can't deny I did not benefit from, meaning she benefited from it, now she says she did nothing wrong, but she's admitted to benefitting from an illegal set up slush fund which she set up, but she says she did nothing wrong, then she quits after an internal investigation, if she did nothing wrong she'd not have quit and been unemployed for 6 months?? She is as guilty as sin, look at the ppl involved in the slushfund and who knew about it and have a look at the positions she's given them??? Jobs for keeping your mouths shut??? be good when she is in gaol. Yes, Woof Woof, but Matty will get a good job when Mr Abbott gets in. What goes around comes around. Matty has been tireless in his attacks on the carbon tax. He wasn't getting much sleep and needed to move to New Zealand. He was making typos all over the place. Sexy Beast has been following the argument. I think Matty would make a great climate commissioner or something like that. Thoughts?

I have no idea what you're talking about it and I would appreciate you not poati ng stuff about me that is an out and out lie.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 6:45pm:

I don't see why The Australian should apologise. If anything, she should go to the GG to call an early election and then resign as PM. She's a disgrace.

Like she would have the integrity to do that just be thankful it's only a year to go now.

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 6:54pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 6:40pm: woof woof wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 6:30pm: was the job she was given a pay off for the slush fund she setup benefited from. See she said she can't deny she benefited from the account she setup, but if she didn't do anything wrong, why would she get any benmefit from the slush fund?? See on one hand when they were questioning her on the slush fund, she says I can't deny I did not benefit from, meaning she benefited from it, now she says she did nothing wrong, but she's admitted to benefitting from an illegal set up slush fund which she set up, but she says she did nothing wrong, then she quits after an internal investigation, if she did nothing wrong she'd not have quit and been unemployed for 6 months?? She is as guilty as sin, look at the ppl involved in the slushfund and who knew about it and have a look at the positions she's given them??? Jobs for keeping your mouths shut??? be good when she is in gaol. Yes, Woof Woof, but Matty will get a good job when Mr Abbott gets in. What goes around comes around. Matty has been tireless in his attacks on the carbon tax. He wasn't getting much sleep and needed to move to New Zealand. He was making typos all over the place. Sexy Beast has been following the argument. I think Matty would make a great climate commissioner or something like that. Thoughts? I have no idea what you're talking about it and I would appreciate you not poati ng stuff about me that is an out and out lie.

Sorry? Didn't you start a discussion about Matty recently?

Please explain.

There's no need to get defensive about Matty, Sexy Beast. You're two totally different people, you know.

Enquiring mind wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 6:57pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 6:54pm: Enquiring mind wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 6:40pm: woof woof wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 6:30pm: was the job she was given a pay off for the slush fund she setup benefited from. See she said she can't deny she benefited from the account she setup, but if she didn't do anything wrong, why would she get any benmefit from the slush fund?? See on one hand when they were questioning her on the slush fund, she says I can't deny I did not benefit from, meaning she benefited from it, now she says she did nothing wrong, but she's admitted to benefitting from an illegal set up slush fund which she set up, but she says she did nothing wrong, then she quits after an internal investigation, if she did nothing wrong she'd not have quit and been unemployed for 6 months?? She is as guilty as sin, look at the ppl involved in the slushfund and who knew about it and have a look at the positions she's given them??? Jobs for keeping your mouths shut??? be good when she is in gaol. Yes, Woof Woof, but Matty will get a good job when Mr Abbott gets in. What goes around comes around. Matty has been tireless in his attacks on the carbon tax. He wasn't getting much sleep and needed to move to New Zealand. He was making typos all over the place. Sexy Beast has been following the argument. I think Matty would make a great climate commissioner or something like that. Thoughts? I have no idea what you're talking about it and I would appreciate you not poati ng stuff about me that is an out and out lie. Sorry? Didn't you start a discussion about Matty recently? Please explain.

I've been called 'Matty so many times here and don't even know who he is. I opened a thread but apparently it was moved somewhere and I haven't seen it since.

Have a look in Chat, Sexy Beast. Didn't you read all the answers to your question?

It's quite common. Matty used to do that too.

What do you think, Shane B?

If someone posts fibs about Matty, should he resign as climate commissioner?

Matty should be climate commissioner. he could
employ sexy beast and Shane, that way they wouldn't need a very big office, they could even share a desk. :-?

Thing is that the abbott supporters @ this time (after so many obvious lies are exposed) and the media supports him to the point of hilarity . ..  supporters that have hung on through that are so hard core that nothing will shake their "faith". Its like a religion. In fact i bet that any really hard core abbott supporters - whether they admit it or not - are actually religious nuts and support him because he is.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 24^th, 2012 at 6:15am:

Thing is that the abbott supporters @ this time (after so many obvious lies are exposed) and the media supports him to the point of hilarity . ..  supporters that have hung on through that are so hard core that nothing will shake their "faith". Its like a religion. In fact i bet that any really hard core abbott supporters - whether they admit it or not - are actually religious nuts and support him because he is. SOB

We are just lovers of labor corruption

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24^th, 2012 at 6:35am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 6:15am: Thing is that the abbott supporters @ this time (after so many obvious lies are exposed) and the media supports him to the point of hilarity . ..  supporters that have hung on through that are so hard core that nothing will shake their "faith". Its like a religion. In fact i bet that any really hard core abbott supporters - whether they admit it or not - are actually religious nuts and support him because he is. SOB We are just lovers of labor corruption

They both do the same things policy wise. Abbott is (and always has been) a smear campaigner though. He shouldn't be allowed in politics @ all.

SOB

skippy. wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2012 at 8:26pm:

Matty should be climate commissioner. he could employ sexy beast and Shane, that way they wouldn't need a very big office, they could even share a desk. :-?

True. Mr Abbott is big on reducing the public service, so they'll need to streamline. Maybe they could even share a computer.