Prima facie case to charge Julia Gillard with concealing a serious indictable offence in the AWU Scandal

There is enough evidence to charge Julia Gillard for concealing a serious indictable offence which carries a jail term of 2 years. Julia Gillard has dared anyone to make allegations against her, I have before and will again, in this post I make out the prima facie case against Julia Gillard.
There are two key elements

1. Does Julia Gillard know about the fraud. and

2. Did she conceal the fraud.

If you are new to this story please go to the Julia Gillard / Bruce Wilson – AWU Fraud Page at the top in the menu bar for previous posts with all the history. (Click here to go to the page)

Evidence that Julia Gillard knew that there was a fraud.

Everyone knows that her former boyfriend ripped off the AWU and Julia Gillard knows this as well. Gillard helped him but says she did not do it knowingly. The evidence that Julia Gillard knew about the fraud is a mile long but let’s have a look at just some of it.

1. Her excuses that she was “young and naive” and “I was in a relationship, which I ended, and obviously it was all very distressing. I am by no means the first person to find out that someone close
turns out to be different to what you had believed them to be. It’s an ordinary human error.” (Click here to read the article)

2. She said in her press conference the on Thursday that as soon as she found out what Bruce Wilson had been up to she ended the relationship.

3. She was left Slater and Gordon not long after as a direct result of the AWU fraud. Although in the press conference on Thursday she seemed to be claiming there were other reasons as well.

4. Slater and Gordon interviewed her and taped the interview which clearly suggests wrong doing or knowledge of it. In the press conference on Thursday Gillard tried to make out this was not unusual.

I could keep going but if Julia Gillard wants to deny knowing about the fraud it would be a bad joke.

Did Julia Gillard conceal the fraud.

All of the media attention on Julia Gillard in relation to this matter could have been cleared up by her by simply releasing the statements and/or affidavits she gave to the police in 1995/96. There does not seem to be any. Why not?

She could also have released the statements she  gave to the AWU in this matter in 1995/96. As we will see she did not give them any and must have refused to. Why?

In the Ian Cambridge affidavit dated 19th September 1996 on page 19 he says in relation to the purchase of the house by Bruce Wilson in Melbourne  ”I am unable to understand how Slater & Gordon, who were then acting for the Victorian branch of the union, could have permitted the use of funds which where obviously taken from the union, in the purchase of private property of this nature, without seeking and obtaining proper authority from the union for such use of its funds” (Click here to read the affidavit)http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/cambridge-affidavt.pdf

That is a statement that Ian Cambridge should not have needed to make. Julia Gillard and/or Slater and Gordon should have told Ian Cambridge how it happened. At the time Ian Cambridge wrote the affidavit the AWU account had been transferred to Maurice and Blackburn lawyers because of the AWU fraud. But this alone should not have stopped Julia Gillard and Slater and Gordon from helping the AWU investigate.

Did she refuse to help because of the police investigations that were afoot at the time? If this is the case it is not a good look to say the least.

At the press conference on Thursday Julia Gillard was asked:

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you have any information which you are prevented from giving by lawyer-client privilege that could assist the authorities in relation to the funds, you know, that Mr Wilson-

PM: No

Then why did she not give a statement to the police.

The reason there is no lawyer-client privilege stopping her is because of what is called the fraud exception or also known as the crime exception. Lawyer-client privilege means that a lawyer does not have to disclose any communication with the client and they are protected by the law. But if a lawyer helps a client commit a crime then they can and have to disclose the communication which is covered by the fraud exception

I believe that her admission that there is no ”information which you are prevented from giving by lawyer-client privilege” says she knew there was a crime and her communication with Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt was not covered by the lawyer-client privilege. It also asks the question why Julia Gillard did not give any statements to the police or if she did why she has not released them.

At the time of th fraud back in 1995/96 the Western Australia police, Victorian Police and Federal police where all investigating. Bob Kernohan gave a statement to the Federal police in relation to $6,500 he had received from Bruce Wilson which shows up on the Victorian Parliament Hansard website. Kernohan was cleared of any wrong doing. (Click here to read)http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=jVicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=ASSEMBLY&speech=10321&activity=Grievances&title=AWU:+funds&date1=28&date2=February&date3=2001&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'julia'%0a%09and+data+contains+'gillard'+%29%0a

If Bob Kernohan gave a statement, why did Julia Gillard also not give a statement to the police? She now says that she believed the accounts where to be used for a re-election slush fund which turned out to be a lie. So who lied to her? Was it Bruce Wilson or Ralph Blewitt or both. What did they say exactly? This at the very least would clearly be relevent information that would have helped the police in their investigations and most likely would have helped in a prosecution of Bruce Wilson and/or Ralph Blewitt.

CRIMES ACT 1900 – SECT 316

Concealing serious indictable offence

316 Concealing serious indictable offence
(1) If a person has committed a serious indictable offence and another person who knows or believes that the offence has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the Police Force or other appropriate authority, that other person is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) A person who solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit for himself or herself or any other person in consideration for doing anything that would be an offence under subsection (1) is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

(3) It is not an offence against subsection (2) merely to solicit, accept or agree to accept the making good of loss or injury caused by an offence or the making of reasonable compensation for that loss or injury.

(4) A prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) is not to be commenced against a person without the approval of the Attorney General if the knowledge or belief that an offence has been committed was formed or the information referred to in the subsection was obtained by the person in the course of practising or following a profession, calling or vocation prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

(5) The regulations may prescribe a profession, calling or vocation as referred to in subsection (4).

Some of the questions that Julia Gillard has to answer are:

1. Why did to not give a statement / affidavit to the police? If you did why have you not released it as it would clear the air on the whole matter.

2. If you did give a police statement is the story in the statement different to the one the one you have made publicly?

3. Why did you not assist the AWU in their investigations given they were the client?

4. If you did not give a police statement did you refuse on the grounds that you might incriminate yourself?

5. Did you also refuse to help the AWU on the grounds that you might incriminate yourself?

6. Did you claim legal privilege in refusing to help the police? If you did, why did you say on Thursday that legal privilege was not a factor that covered your information in this matter.

7. In 2007 Glenn Milne reported ”she has strenuously denied ever knowing what the association’s bank accounts were used for.” (Click here to read more) But you now say they were meant to be used for a slush fund. Have you told this to the police?

That will do for starters and I will have follow-up questions once you have answered them.

If you appeal a judgment in court on the grounds of bias by the judge you do not have to show actual bias, you only have to show perceived bias and you will win the appeal. The point is in this matter the media are totally focused on showing Julia Gillard was party to the crime which should be applauded, but they also need to question her role in the concealment of the crime.

Showing Gillard was a party to the crime will be hard to prove unless at least two people spill the beans on Julia Gillard and that is unlikely to happen anytime soon. But what can be proved now is his her involvement in the concealment of the crime unless she has some brilliant answers to the issues and questions that I have raised above.

If would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation which would be used for myself to have time off work and focus solely on this matter for a period, as the performance of the press on Thursday shows they need help and I am one of the best briefed on the matter as I have been covering it since last year and researching it before that. If I can raise enough over the next week I will most likely go to Canberra for the next parliament sitting period in September.

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2012/08/26/prima-facie-case-to-charge-julia-gillard-with-concealing-a-serious-indictable-offence-in-awu-scandal/

Unfortunately Gillard will switch tact from "being young and vulnerable" to "client and lawyer privileges"

She certainly has a history of making bad deals with men

kangaroo court web site you must think we are idiots to believe something from there

It is only a liberal party hack site

John S wrote on Aug 26^th, 2012 at 11:18pm:

kangaroo court web site you must think we are idiots to believe something from there It is only a liberal party hack site

Really. Well its a ballsy liberal hack site then.

Maqqa wrote on Aug 26^th, 2012 at 10:09pm:

Unfortunately Gillard will switch tact from "being young and vulnerable" to "client and lawyer privileges" She certainly has a history of making bad deals with men

Yes, it didn't work out too well for her when she jumped into bed with Bob Brown. He's now left her and put a woman in his place who wouldn't know one end of a tree from the other.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 26^th, 2012 at 11:43pm:

John S wrote on Aug 26th, 2012 at 11:18pm: kangaroo court web site you must think we are idiots to believe something from there It is only a liberal party hack site Really. Well its a ballsy liberal hack site then.

this is from his web site

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/about/


Quote:

The main focus of this website (blog) is on the corrupt conduct of Australian Judges and Magistrates and the Federal Politicians and Police who cover it up by failing to take action.

A bit of history about him he worked at Fairfax and was put off then he took the case for termination to court and represented  himself and lost the case so now he thinks all Politicians, Judges, Magistrates Barrister and Solicitors are corrupt


Quote:

I had an unlawful termination proceeding that lasted 3 years against Fairfax Media. It took 20 months to get to hearing. It was a bad joke. I represented myself and the corruption was rife (the 20 months to get to hearing says it all) and I learnt a lot. Fairfax and their lawyers Freehills abused the processes and system like there was no tomorrow. But an unlawful termination you can always pick up your bat and ball and move on. During that time I came across a lot of people who could not move on as a huge part of their lives were riding on the court cases like financial matters or family matters and I knew they were getting shafted as well just by some of the things they told me from a procedural viewpoint. So someone has to do something and because I do not have any baggage from my experience I can do it. A lot of people who have had a bad experience in the courts are worn down and burnt out. I am not. The courts have gone unchecked and unchallenged for too long. But now they won’t.

He must be one of those nut case Gillard said on Thursday.

Anyone the copies and paste his articles from his web site to another web site must be a nut case as will to believe his bull shyte

John S wrote on Aug 27^th, 2012 at 10:12am:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 26th, 2012 at 11:43pm: John S wrote on Aug 26th, 2012 at 11:18pm: kangaroo court web site you must think we are idiots to believe something from there It is only a liberal party hack site Really. Well its a ballsy liberal hack site then. this is from his web site http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/about/ Quote: The main focus of this website (blog) is on the corrupt conduct of Australian Judges and Magistrates and the Federal Politicians and Police who cover it up by failing to take action. A bit of history about him he worked at Fairfax and was put off then he took the case for termination to court and represented  himself and lost the case so now he thinks all Politicians, Judges, Magistrates Barrister and Solicitors are corrupt [quote] I had an unlawful termination proceeding that lasted 3 years against Fairfax Media. It took 20 months to get to hearing. It was a bad joke. I represented myself and the corruption was rife (the 20 months to get to hearing says it all) and I learnt a lot. Fairfax and their lawyers Freehills abused the processes and system like there was no tomorrow. But an unlawful termination you can always pick up your bat and ball and move on. During that time I came across a lot of people who could not move on as a huge part of their lives were riding on the court cases like financial matters or family matters and I knew they were getting shafted as well just by some of the things they told me from a procedural viewpoint. So someone has to do something and because I do not have any baggage from my experience I can do it. A lot of people who have had a bad experience in the courts are worn down and burnt out. I am not. The courts have gone unchecked and unchallenged for too long. But now they won’t.

He must be one of those nut case Gillard said on Thursday.

Anyone the copies and paste his articles from his web site to another web site must be a nut case as will to believe his bull shyte[/quote]
Thanks, you just dont know how much it means to me for you to refer to me with a quote from a lying PM.

I take it with honor. I am now in the same sphere as judges, lawyers and journalists.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 26^th, 2012 at 9:59pm:

Does my bum look big in prison blues?

Not having seen your bum, I don't know.

I just think your as desperate as Abbott.
You know that if policies and articulating vision for our country is what's required to win the election rather than bluster Tony's got no hope.

What's disappointing is we've had some good discussions on issues, you don't seem like a dill, yet you seem quite happy to elect one.

Now you say it's because you feel cheated by Gillard's lie, but you quite happy to accept Abbott's blatant lie that he will get rid of the price on carbon to polluters & replace it with a tax payer funded scheme.
I.E - An actual TAX as opposed to the rhetorical 1 you wish to scrap.

on the one hand she claims the accounts were for work and safety in the UNION

on the other.. it was  a trust..ooops.. make that slush fund..to help poor union reps make it into politics..

then on the other...hummmmm foot..

she claims she didnt know she was doing anything wrong?????


isnt that what she meant when she said she was YOUNG and NAIVE..in her 30s yet:?

then she claims she left when she found out what he was doing???


what was he doing JULIAR??????.


progressiveslol wrote on Aug 26^th, 2012 at 9:59pm:

She said in her press conference the on Thursday that as soon as she found out what Bruce Wilson had been up to she ended the relationship.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 26^th, 2012 at 9:59pm:

. Slater and Gordon interviewed her and taped the interview which clearly suggests wrong doing or knowledge of it. In the press conference on Thursday Gillard tried to make out this was not unusual.

I too am of the opinion no one records someone leaving or getting the sack unless there is something more sinister behind it..


this story does bounce around..no two interviews are alike anyone else noticed that?

John S wrote on Aug 27^th, 2012 at 10:12am:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 26th, 2012 at 11:43pm: John S wrote on Aug 26th, 2012 at 11:18pm: kangaroo court web site you must think we are idiots to believe something from there It is only a liberal party hack site Really. Well its a ballsy liberal hack site then. this is from his web site http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/about/ Quote: The main focus of this website (blog) is on the corrupt conduct of Australian Judges and Magistrates and the Federal Politicians and Police who cover it up by failing to take action. A bit of history about him he worked at Fairfax and was put off then he took the case for termination to court and represented  himself and lost the case so now he thinks all Politicians, Judges, Magistrates Barrister and Solicitors are corrupt [quote] I had an unlawful termination proceeding that lasted 3 years against Fairfax Media. It took 20 months to get to hearing. It was a bad joke. I represented myself and the corruption was rife (the 20 months to get to hearing says it all) and I learnt a lot. Fairfax and their lawyers Freehills abused the processes and system like there was no tomorrow. But an unlawful termination you can always pick up your bat and ball and move on. During that time I came across a lot of people who could not move on as a huge part of their lives were riding on the court cases like financial matters or family matters and I knew they were getting shafted as well just by some of the things they told me from a procedural viewpoint. So someone has to do something and because I do not have any baggage from my experience I can do it. A lot of people who have had a bad experience in the courts are worn down and burnt out. I am not. The courts have gone unchecked and unchallenged for too long. But now they won’t.

He must be one of those nut case Gillard said on Thursday.

Anyone the copies and paste his articles from his web site to another web site must be a nut case as will to believe his bull shyte[/quote]




from the guy that reads everything some other cant even think of its name website,

who write in favour of THOMO and bleeds all over the boards for him.. ;D ;D


what a hypocrite..


must be a greeny'''

dont do as I do do as I say mantra..

just had a thought THOMO must be saying his prayers that gillard has got him off the front pages


hilarious..

perhaps they have special commiseration meetings.

WOW talk about about bait for the delusional, prog is a master at both.

cods wrote on Aug 27^th, 2012 at 5:03pm:

on the one hand she claims the accounts were for work and safety in the UNION on the other.. it was  a trust..ooops.. make that slush fund..to help poor union reps make it into politics.. then on the other...hummmmm foot.. she claims she didnt know she was doing anything wrong????? isnt that what she meant when she said she was YOUNG and NAIVE..in her 30s yet:? then she claims she left when she found out what he was doing??? what was he doing JULIAR??????. progressiveslol wrote on Aug 26th, 2012 at 9:59pm: She said in her press conference the on Thursday that as soon as she found out what Bruce Wilson had been up to she ended the relationship. progressiveslol wrote on Aug 26th, 2012 at 9:59pm: . Slater and Gordon interviewed her and taped the interview which clearly suggests wrong doing or knowledge of it. In the press conference on Thursday Gillard tried to make out this was not unusual. I too am of the opinion no one records someone leaving or getting the sack unless there is something more sinister behind it.. this story does bounce around..no two interviews are alike anyone else noticed that?

Dont forget or you missed it, that Gillard knew more about wilson and his wrong doings when she left, more than anyone. She apparently, by her words, left him because of what he was up to. Then why didnt she go to the police if she was an upstanding citizen.

Is it because she is not an upstanding citizen or would she have been in trouble as well.

You would think she would go to the police if she was an upstanding citizen, just for the fact that she convinced the WA union members to allow wilson to move their money, where he got his hands onto it after that.

Shameful.

Well does my bum look big in these prison rags


The AWU Scandal - WA Associations Incorporation Act - The sham "Australian Workers' Union Workplace Reform Association"


The now notorious Association “Australian Workers’ Union – Workplace Reform Association” was incorporated under Western Australian law.

The Western Australian parliament envisaged that it would be useful for groups of people to come together, to associate and to inform the government of their association so that they could incorporate, or become a single body corporate.   Amongst other things that would let them open bank accounts.

The parliament in the West saw that as a community good for sports, arts, cultural groups and the like.

There are less burdensome reporting requirements on associations than there are for companies, trusts or other forms of corporate entities (or bodies).

What we know for sure is that Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt wanted an Association incorporated under the legislation that I’ve attached to this blog.

The law is Western Australian law.   It’s not industrial relations law, it’s a local state law designed for small community groups.

Here is the law.
http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/files/___wa-associations-incorporation-act-from-wa-police-foi-1.pdf
Download ___WA Associations Incorporation Act (from WA Police FOI)

You will note several significant points.

1 – An association must have 5 members to incorporate under this law.   Bruce and Ralph only had
themselves.   There were no other members.

2  An association cannot incorporate under this law if it proposes to trade for pecuniary profit.   Bruce and Ralph started issuing invoices soon after their association was incorporated.

3 An association cannot incorporate under this law if it is a trade union.

4 An association cannot incorporate under this law if its name is misleading as to its purpose. 
Note  J Gillard’s statement that it was a re-election slush fund.   Compare and contrast with the name.

5 An association cannot incorporate under this law if it sounds like another corporate body. 
That is at the heart of this association.   As you’ll see when I get to the invoices  Bruce and Ralph sent out, the scam wouldn’t have worked if it didn’t sound like it was part of the AWU.


So Bruce Wilson’s choice of lawyer is significant.   He started going out with Julia Gillard in
late 1991 (source, J Gillard departure interview with Slater and Gordon).

Rather than go to a suburban solicitor in Perth who would be conversant with the local law, Bruce flew with Ralph to Melbourne to meet with Ms Gillard.   Ms Gillard acknowledges having “given legal advice” in the establishment of this association (source, transcript of interview 23 August, 2012). 


Here is what the PM said last week:

“I will be far more precise than that. I was a solicitor at Slater & Gordon. I assisted with the provision of advice regarding the setting up of an association, the workplace reform association that you refer to. My understanding is that the purpose of the association was to support the re-election of a team of union officials and their pursuit of the policies that they would stand for re-election on. It was my understanding that the association would engage in fundraising activities, including, for example, there being regular payroll deductions from union officials who would be putting their money together to support their re-election campaign and that they may well have other fundraising activities like hosting dinners where it would be transparent to people that the money was going to support their re-election campaign. My role in relation to this was I provided advice as a solicitor. I am not the signatory to the documents that incorporated this association. I was not an office bearer of the association. I had no involvement in the working of the association. I provided advice in relation to its establishment and that was it.”

It was pretty crap advice.    But then Bruce got it for free so it probably reinforces the maxim that you get what you pay for.


The truth is that Julia Gillard’s role went beyond advice.   There are 9 pages of rules entitled Objects of the Association” that were appended to the application.

Importantly, the name “Australian Workers’ Union – Workplace Reform Association” is in Julia Gillard’s handwriting on the 2 forms that form part of the application.   Thus we can link Ms Gillard to specific advice about the name of the association – that it included the words “Australian Workers’ Union”.   That she did that without any explanatory note, minute or other permission from the owner of that name, the AWU is beyond explanation.

After this blog I will explain how Ms Gillard’s boyfriend used the sham association to pass itself off as being a subsidiary entity of the AWU and how he used that passing-off to rip-off money.

This is a copy of the Application that contains Ms Gillard's writing on the line that has the name of the Association. http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/files/_92_04_22---application-for-incorporation---from-ic4.pdf

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/08/the-wa-associations-incorporation-act.html

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 26^th, 2012 at 9:59pm:

Prima facie case to charge Julia Gillard with concealing a serious indictable offence in the AWU Scandal There is enough evidence to charge Julia Gillard for concealing a serious indictable offence which carries a jail term of 2 years. Julia Gillard has dared anyone to make allegations against her, I have before and will again, in this post I make out the prima facie case against Julia Gillard. There are two key elements 1. Does Julia Gillard know about the fraud. and 2. Did she conceal the fraud.

You forgot the 3rd element - the tiny detail that no charges were ever laid for fraud.

When there is actually an offence - then you may have a point.  Until then - you don't.

Wow. The depths of the internet that progressiveslol must rawl. A bottom feeder if ever I've come across one.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 27^th, 2012 at 9:54pm:

Wow. The depths of the internet that progressiveslol must rawl. A bottom feeder if ever I've come across one.

Ohhhh. Now thats not far. I more look forward to you quoting a lying PM about perceived BS sexism and nutjobs in reference to judges, lawyers, journalists, ex-police, labor members and in this case, the police themselves who are investigating thomson.

Oh well, I am still pleased to be in the same sphere as the above.

Try a little harder next time labor corruption lover.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 27^th, 2012 at 10:02pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 9:54pm: Wow. The depths of the internet that progressiveslol must rawl. A bottom feeder if ever I've come across one. Ohhhh. Now thats not far. I more look forward to you quoting a lying PM about perceived BS sexism and nutjobs in reference to judges, lawyers, journalists, ex-police, labor members and in this case, the police themselves who are investigating thomson. Oh well, I am still pleased to be in the same sphere as the above. Try a little harder next time labor corruption lover.

I think you'll find the reference to "sexism and nutjobs" was in relation to Pickering.  Have a look at his website and you will understand.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 27^th, 2012 at 10:32pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 10:02pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 9:54pm: Wow. The depths of the internet that progressiveslol must rawl. A bottom feeder if ever I've come across one. Ohhhh. Now thats not far. I more look forward to you quoting a lying PM about perceived BS sexism and nutjobs in reference to judges, lawyers, journalists, ex-police, labor members and in this case, the police themselves who are investigating thomson. Oh well, I am still pleased to be in the same sphere as the above. Try a little harder next time labor corruption lover. I think you'll find the reference to "sexism and nutjobs" was in relation to Pickering.  Have a look at his website and you will understand.

That is not how gillard referenced it. She did have issues with pickering, but did not reference that statement directly to him.

As for pickering being sexist, I dont see how him writing an expose about a young and naive pregnant 35 year old partner in a law firm, is sexist. He is pushing her buttons and she does not like it.

Maybe you could point out what it is in particular for examples sake, that pickering has written that was sexist. Then I can evaluate why you may say what you said.

Professor Cheryl Kernot, former leader of the Democrats and Labor MP:


Quote:

“Julia Gillard’s press conference was courageous and competent; she did not seek the cover of parliamentary privilege but fronted a room containing a number of (predominantly male) journalists who are running a vicious agenda aimed at her “character”; self-important little people convincing themselves they are acting in the “public interest”.  And she answered their questions for well over an hour. “What’s a legitimate public interest story? Rumours relating to an error of judgement in not ‘opening’ a file on pro bono work for a union 17 years ago; or falling out with some partner colleagues; or falling in love with someone who deceived you? “I don’t think so. “Not when the questions have been answered and refuted on several occasions over many years and when the timing and the motives for revisiting them are nakedly political and overlaid with sexism.  “Can we go back and re-examine all the details of Tony Abbott’s pre-marital sex life? Given his strict Catholic values, is that not equally as illuminating about his “character” even 30 years on? “What’s particularly alarming, I think, is that having said she wouldn’t dignify the comments being made even a PM was eventually hounded by the press gallery herd to respond. “An unelected, largely unaccountable, often self-righteous bunch of people – many of whose own lives of 20 years ago wouldn’t withstand detailed scrutiny – have more power in setting the agenda of what matters to our nation than those who are elected. “This IS a serious problem for Australian democracy … and supplements, in the most damaging way the cowardly, abusive, anonymity infecting our social media. Everyone – individuals and societies – needs boundaries. “It’s time to set some and not be blackmailed by the usual default response of ‘threats to freedom of speech’.”

The irony, progs, is that the title of this thread is a perfect example of what Gillard is talking about.

MOTR wrote on Aug 28^th, 2012 at 4:12am:

Professor Cheryl Kernot, former leader of the Democrats and Labor MP: Quote: “Julia Gillard’s press conference was courageous and competent; she did not seek the cover of parliamentary privilege but fronted a room containing a number of (predominantly male) journalists who are running a vicious agenda aimed at her “character”; self-important little people convincing themselves they are acting in the “public interest”.  And she answered their questions for well over an hour. “What’s a legitimate public interest story? Rumours relating to an error of judgement in not ‘opening’ a file on pro bono work for a union 17 years ago; or falling out with some partner colleagues; or falling in love with someone who deceived you? “I don’t think so. “Not when the questions have been answered and refuted on several occasions over many years and when the timing and the motives for revisiting them are nakedly political and overlaid with sexism.  “Can we go back and re-examine all the details of Tony Abbott’s pre-marital sex life? Given his strict Catholic values, is that not equally as illuminating about his “character” even 30 years on? “What’s particularly alarming, I think, is that having said she wouldn’t dignify the comments being made even a PM was eventually hounded by the press gallery herd to respond. “An unelected, largely unaccountable, often self-righteous bunch of people – many of whose own lives of 20 years ago wouldn’t withstand detailed scrutiny – have more power in setting the agenda of what matters to our nation than those who are elected. “This IS a serious problem for Australian democracy … and supplements, in the most damaging way the cowardly, abusive, anonymity infecting our social media. Everyone – individuals and societies – needs boundaries. “It’s time to set some and not be blackmailed by the usual default response of ‘threats to freedom of speech’.” The irony, progs, is that the title of this thread is a perfect example of what Gillard is talking about.

I did nothing wrong. I was a young and naive ozpolitic member at the time.

A perfectly legitimate subject heading considering an accusation has been made.

If you are refering to the bum thing, I dont care if you or gillard dont like satire.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 27^th, 2012 at 10:43pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 10:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 10:02pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 9:54pm: Wow. The depths of the internet that progressiveslol must rawl. A bottom feeder if ever I've come across one. Ohhhh. Now thats not far. I more look forward to you quoting a lying PM about perceived BS sexism and nutjobs in reference to judges, lawyers, journalists, ex-police, labor members and in this case, the police themselves who are investigating thomson. Oh well, I am still pleased to be in the same sphere as the above. Try a little harder next time labor corruption lover. I think you'll find the reference to "sexism and nutjobs" was in relation to Pickering.  Have a look at his website and you will understand. That is not how gillard referenced it. She did have issues with pickering, but did not reference that statement directly to him. As for pickering being sexist, I dont see how him writing an expose about a young and naive pregnant 35 year old partner in a law firm, is sexist. He is pushing her buttons and she does not like it. Maybe you could point out what it is in particular for examples sake, that pickering has written that was sexist. Then I can evaluate why you may say what you said.

My guess is it is the plethora of cartoons featuring the PM sporting a strap-on dildo.
Evaluate that for us.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2012 at 6:55am:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 10:43pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 10:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 10:02pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 9:54pm: Wow. The depths of the internet that progressiveslol must rawl. A bottom feeder if ever I've come across one. Ohhhh. Now thats not far. I more look forward to you quoting a lying PM about perceived BS sexism and nutjobs in reference to judges, lawyers, journalists, ex-police, labor members and in this case, the police themselves who are investigating thomson. Oh well, I am still pleased to be in the same sphere as the above. Try a little harder next time labor corruption lover. I think you'll find the reference to "sexism and nutjobs" was in relation to Pickering.  Have a look at his website and you will understand. That is not how gillard referenced it. She did have issues with pickering, but did not reference that statement directly to him. As for pickering being sexist, I dont see how him writing an expose about a young and naive pregnant 35 year old partner in a law firm, is sexist. He is pushing her buttons and she does not like it. Maybe you could point out what it is in particular for examples sake, that pickering has written that was sexist. Then I can evaluate why you may say what you said. My guess is it is the plethora of cartoons featuring the PM sporting a strap-on dildo. Evaluate that for us.

That is what pickering does. Have you seen his other cartoons? I take it is the dildo you find offensive. Well I am sure it is meant to be because he may believe gillard to be in a sham marriage. That does not make it sexist.

Pickering has been said to have less nudes of gillard than other ex-PM's.

Thought I had better take the nudy picture off, just in case it is against the code.

I link this site instead. I like the following in the article.

Quote:

As for the ‘nutjob’ barb, PM. That ‘nutjob’ got you standing at a podium for almost an hour, all from his keyboard, inciting legitimate questions while you fielded answers about your very questionable past. If he’s a nutjob, then he should have been ignored and discredited long ago. But you gave him all the time in the world today, the longest press conference from a PM in decades according to stunned political observers. Pretty crafty ol’ ‘nutjob’.

http://www.cagle.com/tag/larry-pickering/

NUTJOB!

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 28^th, 2012 at 7:19am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 6:55am: progressiveslol wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 10:43pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 10:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 10:02pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 9:54pm: Wow. The depths of the internet that progressiveslol must rawl. A bottom feeder if ever I've come across one. Ohhhh. Now thats not far. I more look forward to you quoting a lying PM about perceived BS sexism and nutjobs in reference to judges, lawyers, journalists, ex-police, labor members and in this case, the police themselves who are investigating thomson. Oh well, I am still pleased to be in the same sphere as the above. Try a little harder next time labor corruption lover. I think you'll find the reference to "sexism and nutjobs" was in relation to Pickering.  Have a look at his website and you will understand. That is not how gillard referenced it. She did have issues with pickering, but did not reference that statement directly to him. As for pickering being sexist, I dont see how him writing an expose about a young and naive pregnant 35 year old partner in a law firm, is sexist. He is pushing her buttons and she does not like it. Maybe you could point out what it is in particular for examples sake, that pickering has written that was sexist. Then I can evaluate why you may say what you said. My guess is it is the plethora of cartoons featuring the PM sporting a strap-on dildo. Evaluate that for us. That is what pickering does. Have you seen his other cartoons? I take it is the dildo you find offensive. Well I am sure it is meant to be because he may believe gillard to be in a sham marriage. That does not make it sexist. Pickering has been said to have less nudes of gillard than other ex-PM's. Thought I had better take the nudy picture off, just in case it is against the code. I link this site instead. I like the following in the article. Quote: As for the ‘nutjob’ barb, PM. That ‘nutjob’ got you standing at a podium for almost an hour, all from his keyboard, inciting legitimate questions while you fielded answers about your very questionable past. If he’s a nutjob, then he should have been ignored and discredited long ago. But you gave him all the time in the world today, the longest press conference from a PM in decades according to stunned political observers. Pretty crafty ol’ ‘nutjob’. http://www.cagle.com/tag/larry-pickering/

Actually:
Well I am sure it is meant to be because he may believe gillard to be in a sham marriage.
would make it blatantly sexist.

Though I doubt that is the point of Pickering always drawing the PM with a strap-on didlo.  I really have no idea what his point is - but I doubt that is it.

BTW - I have enjoyed Pickering's cartoons for many years.  But the strap-on didlo is hardly cutting satire - simply sexist and unnecessary.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YlKo0weGe7o/UD8wZkrFItI/AAAAAAAB5_Y/-oEJ92DWdjY/s1600/do%2Bi%2Blook%2Bfat.jpg

geez there's some IDIOTS on here ...

you don't think if there was any truth to the rumour, it would have come out the last 50 times this has been investigated ......

Progs, the KCA people are upset about you copying the whole article. In future, please just copy a reasonable amount and give the link for people to follow to read the rest.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2012 at 11:19pm:

Progs, the KCA people are upset about you copying the whole article. In future, please just copy a reasonable amount and give the link for people to follow to read the rest.

Will do.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 1^st, 2012 at 11:35pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2012 at 11:19pm: Progs, the KCA people are upset about you copying the whole article. In future, please just copy a reasonable amount and give the link for people to follow to read the rest. Will do.

For Red Baron - some additional reading

Standard enraged troll responses - ignore the topic and attack the poster.

Trolls don't attempt to refute what is obviously the TRUTH because they can't and so they follow the example of their hero, Miss Gillard, and seek to vent their frustration and to divert attention from the TRUTH in the topic by directing their inadequacy towards the poster - what a pathetic response and what a waste of time and blog space - trolls are such a boring waste of time and impress only themselves as they unsuccessfully try to draw attention to their insignificant inferior normally totally ignored pathetic little nobody selves.

lisa.greek wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 8:38am:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 1st, 2012 at 11:35pm: freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2012 at 11:19pm: Progs, the KCA people are upset about you copying the whole article. In future, please just copy a reasonable amount and give the link for people to follow to read the rest. Will do. For Red Baron - some additional reading

Bump for Red Baron - some additional reading for you.  Please ignore the numpty posting below.  Was an ex labor voter called Mellie who lost her way and voted Liberal last time.