Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 24
Send Topic Print
Is Gillard about to be exposed (Read 63051 times)
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #255 - Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:48pm
 
John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:47pm:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:22pm:
John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:21pm:
I know, I know ...but i have to say it ..again ...bugger there's some idiots on here ...

skippy has gone for the day


it's common for idiots to live in denial ... accept the reality .

You have finally come around. Reality is good dont you think.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71950
Gender: male
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #256 - Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:55pm
 
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:48pm:
John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:47pm:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:22pm:
John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:21pm:
I know, I know ...but i have to say it ..again ...bugger there's some idiots on here ...

skippy has gone for the day


it's common for idiots to live in denial ... accept the reality .

You have finally come around. Reality is good dont you think.


i was always a realist ... the question is when will you get around to facing reality ??????
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #257 - Aug 23rd, 2012 at 11:03pm
 
John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:55pm:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:48pm:
John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:47pm:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:22pm:
John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:21pm:
I know, I know ...but i have to say it ..again ...bugger there's some idiots on here ...

skippy has gone for the day


it's common for idiots to live in denial ... accept the reality .

You have finally come around. Reality is good dont you think.


i was always a realist ... the question is when will you get around to facing reality ??????

Been there all the way. I just dont like lovers of labor corruption.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71950
Gender: male
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #258 - Aug 23rd, 2012 at 11:15pm
 
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 11:03pm:
John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:55pm:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:48pm:
John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:47pm:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:22pm:
John Smith wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:21pm:
I know, I know ...but i have to say it ..again ...bugger there's some idiots on here ...

skippy has gone for the day


it's common for idiots to live in denial ... accept the reality .

You have finally come around. Reality is good dont you think.


i was always a realist ... the question is when will you get around to facing reality ??????

Been there all the way. I just dont like lovers of labor corruption.


you are a long way from anything remotely resembling reality ... you sit here prejudging everybody that is ALP even when the evidence is showing the opposite of your claims and you call labor corrupt?  corruption comes in many forms .... the only difference is that you use the excuse that your a nobody and so you are allowed ... if anyone in ALp acted as you do you would condemn them eternally... hypocrite
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #259 - Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:32am
 
The AWU scandal - But it still comes back to that form


Hedley Thomas makes the point I’ve discussed in the post below - that Julia Gillard’s brilliant performance yesterday still did not resolve the real issue.

Why did the application she helped to prepare to register the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association not declare it was really a slush fund for her boyfriend?


The “slush fund” that Gillard had created three years earlier was a legal entity, an incorporated body, for the purpose of raising and holding funds for the re-election of union officials. It was designed to assist the personal advancement in the union of Gillard’s then boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, who was then the leader of the West Australian branch of the Australian Workers Union…

They could have called it the AWU re-election fund. Or the AWU vote-for-a-new-leader fund.

Instead, it was called the AWU Workplace Reform Association, a title completely at odds with its actual purpose. The written objects, or rules, for the association do not disclose the true purpose is to fund elections for union officials.

On the contrary, the rules stress purposes including the promotion of safer workplaces and skills training. In the formal application for the association, Gillard advised that it was formed for the purpose of “development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces”.

In this way, its purported purpose had nothing to do with its actual purpose - as a “slush fund” for the re-election of Gillard’s then boyfriend. This is Gillard’s Achilles heel.

Yesterday, Gillard said she had not signed the document to set up the association and had only provided legal advice. Further, she said if the fund supported “trade union officials who would stand on a platform about reform and improvements in workplaces”, then it had fulfilled its stated role. But this later explanation, at her hour-long media conference, remains difficult to reconcile with the facts....

The reality is that if any of the documents lodged with the West Australian government agency had disclosed that the association’s true purpose was as a “slush fund” to help in the election of union officials, it would not have been registered.

It would not have been eligible under the legislation that governed such associations....

In her answers yesterday, the Prime Minister deftly moved the goalposts.... Gillard said: “My understanding of the purpose of this association was to support the re-election of union officials who would run a campaign saying that they wanted re-election because they were committed to reforming workplaces in a certain way, to increasing occupational health and safety, to improving the conditions of the members of the union. That was my understanding of the purpose of the association, and so I provided legal advice for the association.”

There it is. If Gillard had given the WA government agency the same answer as she gave yesterday, the bureaucrats in Perth would likely have rejected the application outright. They would have seen it for what it was: a “slush fund” for the purpose of raising funds for the election of union officials.

Gillard’s explanations on this will raise more questions about trust, integrity and professionalism.


But Gillard yesterday brilliantly injected fresh and sexy topics for her side to debate: sexism, misogyny, the Mudoch hate media, the nasty Internet, the woman betrayed, American Tea Party politics and more. More red herrings than a fish factory.

(Subscription required.)

UPDATE

Graham Richardson is right:
Maybe it was because she was angry. Maybe it was because she had been goaded into action by a campaign she considered grossly unfair. This time the Prime Minister did what I have been desperately wanting her to do. She took charge. There was a commanding air about her and from the moment she began you knew this was a truly formidable woman.

Graham Richardson is wrong:

I will speak and write no more on this affair


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comm...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lisa.greek
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1595
Cairns QLD
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #260 - Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:36am
 
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:32am:
The AWU scandal - But it still comes back to that form


Hedley Thomas makes the point I’ve discussed in the post below - that Julia Gillard’s brilliant performance yesterday still did not resolve the real issue.

Why did the application she helped to prepare to register the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association not declare it was really a slush fund for her boyfriend?


The “slush fund” that Gillard had created three years earlier was a legal entity, an incorporated body, for the purpose of raising and holding funds for the re-election of union officials. It was designed to assist the personal advancement in the union of Gillard’s then boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, who was then the leader of the West Australian branch of the Australian Workers Union…

They could have called it the AWU re-election fund. Or the AWU vote-for-a-new-leader fund.

Instead, it was called the AWU Workplace Reform Association, a title completely at odds with its actual purpose. The written objects, or rules, for the association do not disclose the true purpose is to fund elections for union officials.

On the contrary, the rules stress purposes including the promotion of safer workplaces and skills training. In the formal application for the association, Gillard advised that it was formed for the purpose of “development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces”.

In this way, its purported purpose had nothing to do with its actual purpose - as a “slush fund” for the re-election of Gillard’s then boyfriend. This is Gillard’s Achilles heel.

Yesterday, Gillard said she had not signed the document to set up the association and had only provided legal advice. Further, she said if the fund supported “trade union officials who would stand on a platform about reform and improvements in workplaces”, then it had fulfilled its stated role. But this later explanation, at her hour-long media conference, remains difficult to reconcile with the facts....

The reality is that if any of the documents lodged with the West Australian government agency had disclosed that the association’s true purpose was as a “slush fund” to help in the election of union officials, it would not have been registered.

It would not have been eligible under the legislation that governed such associations....

In her answers yesterday, the Prime Minister deftly moved the goalposts.... Gillard said: “My understanding of the purpose of this association was to support the re-election of union officials who would run a campaign saying that they wanted re-election because they were committed to reforming workplaces in a certain way, to increasing occupational health and safety, to improving the conditions of the members of the union. That was my understanding of the purpose of the association, and so I provided legal advice for the association.”

There it is. If Gillard had given the WA government agency the same answer as she gave yesterday, the bureaucrats in Perth would likely have rejected the application outright. They would have seen it for what it was: a “slush fund” for the purpose of raising funds for the election of union officials.

Gillard’s explanations on this will raise more questions about trust, integrity and professionalism.


But Gillard yesterday brilliantly injected fresh and sexy topics for her side to debate: sexism, misogyny, the Mudoch hate media, the nasty Internet, the woman betrayed, American Tea Party politics and more. More red herrings than a fish factory.

(Subscription required.)

UPDATE

Graham Richardson is right:
Maybe it was because she was angry. Maybe it was because she had been goaded into action by a campaign she considered grossly unfair. This time the Prime Minister did what I have been desperately wanting her to do. She took charge. There was a commanding air about her and from the moment she began you knew this was a truly formidable woman.

Graham Richardson is wrong:

I will speak and write no more on this affair


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comm...



I sBolty throwing a tanty - or is he worried about his job?   It's not just a bunch of aboriginals this time - this could blow right up in his face if he goes further - and he knows it!   Sook!!!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #261 - Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:39am
 
lisa.greek wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:36am:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:32am:
The AWU scandal - But it still comes back to that form


Hedley Thomas makes the point I’ve discussed in the post below - that Julia Gillard’s brilliant performance yesterday still did not resolve the real issue.

Why did the application she helped to prepare to register the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association not declare it was really a slush fund for her boyfriend?


The “slush fund” that Gillard had created three years earlier was a legal entity, an incorporated body, for the purpose of raising and holding funds for the re-election of union officials. It was designed to assist the personal advancement in the union of Gillard’s then boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, who was then the leader of the West Australian branch of the Australian Workers Union…

They could have called it the AWU re-election fund. Or the AWU vote-for-a-new-leader fund.

Instead, it was called the AWU Workplace Reform Association, a title completely at odds with its actual purpose. The written objects, or rules, for the association do not disclose the true purpose is to fund elections for union officials.

On the contrary, the rules stress purposes including the promotion of safer workplaces and skills training. In the formal application for the association, Gillard advised that it was formed for the purpose of “development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces”.

In this way, its purported purpose had nothing to do with its actual purpose - as a “slush fund” for the re-election of Gillard’s then boyfriend. This is Gillard’s Achilles heel.

Yesterday, Gillard said she had not signed the document to set up the association and had only provided legal advice. Further, she said if the fund supported “trade union officials who would stand on a platform about reform and improvements in workplaces”, then it had fulfilled its stated role. But this later explanation, at her hour-long media conference, remains difficult to reconcile with the facts....

The reality is that if any of the documents lodged with the West Australian government agency had disclosed that the association’s true purpose was as a “slush fund” to help in the election of union officials, it would not have been registered.

It would not have been eligible under the legislation that governed such associations....

In her answers yesterday, the Prime Minister deftly moved the goalposts.... Gillard said: “My understanding of the purpose of this association was to support the re-election of union officials who would run a campaign saying that they wanted re-election because they were committed to reforming workplaces in a certain way, to increasing occupational health and safety, to improving the conditions of the members of the union. That was my understanding of the purpose of the association, and so I provided legal advice for the association.”

There it is. If Gillard had given the WA government agency the same answer as she gave yesterday, the bureaucrats in Perth would likely have rejected the application outright. They would have seen it for what it was: a “slush fund” for the purpose of raising funds for the election of union officials.

Gillard’s explanations on this will raise more questions about trust, integrity and professionalism.


But Gillard yesterday brilliantly injected fresh and sexy topics for her side to debate: sexism, misogyny, the Mudoch hate media, the nasty Internet, the woman betrayed, American Tea Party politics and more. More red herrings than a fish factory.

(Subscription required.)

UPDATE

Graham Richardson is right:
Maybe it was because she was angry. Maybe it was because she had been goaded into action by a campaign she considered grossly unfair. This time the Prime Minister did what I have been desperately wanting her to do. She took charge. There was a commanding air about her and from the moment she began you knew this was a truly formidable woman.

Graham Richardson is wrong:

I will speak and write no more on this affair


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comm...



I sBolty throwing a tanty - or is he worried about his job?   It's not just a bunch of aboriginals this time - this could blow right up in his face if he goes further - and he knows it!   Sook!!!

Why would it blow up. Just because gillard ambushed the media that was not prepared to ask her questions, does not make this go away.

If there are questions to answer, then the media has every right to get to the bottom of it and not to be scared of some dictator.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lisa.greek
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1595
Cairns QLD
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #262 - Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:44am
 
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:39am:
lisa.greek wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:36am:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:32am:
The AWU scandal - But it still comes back to that form


Hedley Thomas makes the point I’ve discussed in the post below - that Julia Gillard’s brilliant performance yesterday still did not resolve the real issue.

Why did the application she helped to prepare to register the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association not declare it was really a slush fund for her boyfriend?


The “slush fund” that Gillard had created three years earlier was a legal entity, an incorporated body, for the purpose of raising and holding funds for the re-election of union officials. It was designed to assist the personal advancement in the union of Gillard’s then boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, who was then the leader of the West Australian branch of the Australian Workers Union…

They could have called it the AWU re-election fund. Or the AWU vote-for-a-new-leader fund.

Instead, it was called the AWU Workplace Reform Association, a title completely at odds with its actual purpose. The written objects, or rules, for the association do not disclose the true purpose is to fund elections for union officials.

On the contrary, the rules stress purposes including the promotion of safer workplaces and skills training. In the formal application for the association, Gillard advised that it was formed for the purpose of “development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces”.

In this way, its purported purpose had nothing to do with its actual purpose - as a “slush fund” for the re-election of Gillard’s then boyfriend. This is Gillard’s Achilles heel.

Yesterday, Gillard said she had not signed the document to set up the association and had only provided legal advice. Further, she said if the fund supported “trade union officials who would stand on a platform about reform and improvements in workplaces”, then it had fulfilled its stated role. But this later explanation, at her hour-long media conference, remains difficult to reconcile with the facts....

The reality is that if any of the documents lodged with the West Australian government agency had disclosed that the association’s true purpose was as a “slush fund” to help in the election of union officials, it would not have been registered.

It would not have been eligible under the legislation that governed such associations....

In her answers yesterday, the Prime Minister deftly moved the goalposts.... Gillard said: “My understanding of the purpose of this association was to support the re-election of union officials who would run a campaign saying that they wanted re-election because they were committed to reforming workplaces in a certain way, to increasing occupational health and safety, to improving the conditions of the members of the union. That was my understanding of the purpose of the association, and so I provided legal advice for the association.”

There it is. If Gillard had given the WA government agency the same answer as she gave yesterday, the bureaucrats in Perth would likely have rejected the application outright. They would have seen it for what it was: a “slush fund” for the purpose of raising funds for the election of union officials.

Gillard’s explanations on this will raise more questions about trust, integrity and professionalism.


But Gillard yesterday brilliantly injected fresh and sexy topics for her side to debate: sexism, misogyny, the Mudoch hate media, the nasty Internet, the woman betrayed, American Tea Party politics and more. More red herrings than a fish factory.

(Subscription required.)

UPDATE

Graham Richardson is right:
Maybe it was because she was angry. Maybe it was because she had been goaded into action by a campaign she considered grossly unfair. This time the Prime Minister did what I have been desperately wanting her to do. She took charge. There was a commanding air about her and from the moment she began you knew this was a truly formidable woman.

Graham Richardson is wrong:

I will speak and write no more on this affair


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comm...



I sBolty throwing a tanty - or is he worried about his job?   It's not just a bunch of aboriginals this time - this could blow right up in his face if he goes further - and he knows it!   Sook!!!

Why would it blow up. Just because gillard ambushed the media that was not prepared to ask her questions, does not make this go away.

If there are questions to answer, then the media has every right to get to the bottom of it and not to be scared of some dictator.



I watched her media discussion yesterday.    Everyone had the opportunity to ask any questions they liked.    Now watching previous media events by all politicians, most journalists appear to go to these events well armed on questions they want to ask - usually nor relating to the topic being addressed.   Gillard was up there for over an hour and several times gave them the opportunity to lay any accusations at her.  No one could.   Bolt knows this - he is running away as has Mr Pickering.   The only thing Gilalrd gave way on - was that she should not have referred to it as a slush fund - that was it.

Now, if something has occurred that involves Gillard, then the full wrath of the law should apply - but to date - everything bought up has just blown up in the presenter's face.    If they have evidence - produce it.  If not just let it go
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71950
Gender: male
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #263 - Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:45am
 
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:39am:
lisa.greek wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:36am:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:32am:
The AWU scandal - But it still comes back to that form


Hedley Thomas makes the point I’ve discussed in the post below - that Julia Gillard’s brilliant performance yesterday still did not resolve the real issue.

Why did the application she helped to prepare to register the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association not declare it was really a slush fund for her boyfriend?


The “slush fund” that Gillard had created three years earlier was a legal entity, an incorporated body, for the purpose of raising and holding funds for the re-election of union officials. It was designed to assist the personal advancement in the union of Gillard’s then boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, who was then the leader of the West Australian branch of the Australian Workers Union…

They could have called it the AWU re-election fund. Or the AWU vote-for-a-new-leader fund.

Instead, it was called the AWU Workplace Reform Association, a title completely at odds with its actual purpose. The written objects, or rules, for the association do not disclose the true purpose is to fund elections for union officials.

On the contrary, the rules stress purposes including the promotion of safer workplaces and skills training. In the formal application for the association, Gillard advised that it was formed for the purpose of “development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces”.

In this way, its purported purpose had nothing to do with its actual purpose - as a “slush fund” for the re-election of Gillard’s then boyfriend. This is Gillard’s Achilles heel.

Yesterday, Gillard said she had not signed the document to set up the association and had only provided legal advice. Further, she said if the fund supported “trade union officials who would stand on a platform about reform and improvements in workplaces”, then it had fulfilled its stated role. But this later explanation, at her hour-long media conference, remains difficult to reconcile with the facts....

The reality is that if any of the documents lodged with the West Australian government agency had disclosed that the association’s true purpose was as a “slush fund” to help in the election of union officials, it would not have been registered.

It would not have been eligible under the legislation that governed such associations....

In her answers yesterday, the Prime Minister deftly moved the goalposts.... Gillard said: “My understanding of the purpose of this association was to support the re-election of union officials who would run a campaign saying that they wanted re-election because they were committed to reforming workplaces in a certain way, to increasing occupational health and safety, to improving the conditions of the members of the union. That was my understanding of the purpose of the association, and so I provided legal advice for the association.”

There it is. If Gillard had given the WA government agency the same answer as she gave yesterday, the bureaucrats in Perth would likely have rejected the application outright. They would have seen it for what it was: a “slush fund” for the purpose of raising funds for the election of union officials.

Gillard’s explanations on this will raise more questions about trust, integrity and professionalism.


But Gillard yesterday brilliantly injected fresh and sexy topics for her side to debate: sexism, misogyny, the Mudoch hate media, the nasty Internet, the woman betrayed, American Tea Party politics and more. More red herrings than a fish factory.

(Subscription required.)

UPDATE

Graham Richardson is right:
Maybe it was because she was angry. Maybe it was because she had been goaded into action by a campaign she considered grossly unfair. This time the Prime Minister did what I have been desperately wanting her to do. She took charge. There was a commanding air about her and from the moment she began you knew this was a truly formidable woman.

Graham Richardson is wrong:

I will speak and write no more on this affair


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comm...



I sBolty throwing a tanty - or is he worried about his job?   It's not just a bunch of aboriginals this time - this could blow right up in his face if he goes further - and he knows it!   Sook!!!

Why would it blow up. Just because gillard ambushed the media that was not prepared to ask her questions, does not make this go away.

If there are questions to answer, then the media has every right to get to the bottom of it and not to be scared of some dictator.


she ambushed the media and it was not prepared?  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
you really are nuts aren't you? your talking about the same media thats had been crying out for supposed answers for weeks prior to this media conference .... what were they crying out for if they didn't know what the questions they wanted answered were? .. your a joke .... like Gillard said, a nut job on the internet ....
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #264 - Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:48am
 
lisa.greek wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:44am:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:39am:
lisa.greek wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:36am:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:32am:
The AWU scandal - But it still comes back to that form


Hedley Thomas makes the point I’ve discussed in the post below - that Julia Gillard’s brilliant performance yesterday still did not resolve the real issue.

Why did the application she helped to prepare to register the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association not declare it was really a slush fund for her boyfriend?


The “slush fund” that Gillard had created three years earlier was a legal entity, an incorporated body, for the purpose of raising and holding funds for the re-election of union officials. It was designed to assist the personal advancement in the union of Gillard’s then boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, who was then the leader of the West Australian branch of the Australian Workers Union…

They could have called it the AWU re-election fund. Or the AWU vote-for-a-new-leader fund.

Instead, it was called the AWU Workplace Reform Association, a title completely at odds with its actual purpose. The written objects, or rules, for the association do not disclose the true purpose is to fund elections for union officials.

On the contrary, the rules stress purposes including the promotion of safer workplaces and skills training. In the formal application for the association, Gillard advised that it was formed for the purpose of “development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces”.

In this way, its purported purpose had nothing to do with its actual purpose - as a “slush fund” for the re-election of Gillard’s then boyfriend. This is Gillard’s Achilles heel.

Yesterday, Gillard said she had not signed the document to set up the association and had only provided legal advice. Further, she said if the fund supported “trade union officials who would stand on a platform about reform and improvements in workplaces”, then it had fulfilled its stated role. But this later explanation, at her hour-long media conference, remains difficult to reconcile with the facts....

The reality is that if any of the documents lodged with the West Australian government agency had disclosed that the association’s true purpose was as a “slush fund” to help in the election of union officials, it would not have been registered.

It would not have been eligible under the legislation that governed such associations....

In her answers yesterday, the Prime Minister deftly moved the goalposts.... Gillard said: “My understanding of the purpose of this association was to support the re-election of union officials who would run a campaign saying that they wanted re-election because they were committed to reforming workplaces in a certain way, to increasing occupational health and safety, to improving the conditions of the members of the union. That was my understanding of the purpose of the association, and so I provided legal advice for the association.”

There it is. If Gillard had given the WA government agency the same answer as she gave yesterday, the bureaucrats in Perth would likely have rejected the application outright. They would have seen it for what it was: a “slush fund” for the purpose of raising funds for the election of union officials.

Gillard’s explanations on this will raise more questions about trust, integrity and professionalism.


But Gillard yesterday brilliantly injected fresh and sexy topics for her side to debate: sexism, misogyny, the Mudoch hate media, the nasty Internet, the woman betrayed, American Tea Party politics and more. More red herrings than a fish factory.

(Subscription required.)

UPDATE

Graham Richardson is right:
Maybe it was because she was angry. Maybe it was because she had been goaded into action by a campaign she considered grossly unfair. This time the Prime Minister did what I have been desperately wanting her to do. She took charge. There was a commanding air about her and from the moment she began you knew this was a truly formidable woman.

Graham Richardson is wrong:

I will speak and write no more on this affair


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comm...



I sBolty throwing a tanty - or is he worried about his job?   It's not just a bunch of aboriginals this time - this could blow right up in his face if he goes further - and he knows it!   Sook!!!

Why would it blow up. Just because gillard ambushed the media that was not prepared to ask her questions, does not make this go away.

If there are questions to answer, then the media has every right to get to the bottom of it and not to be scared of some dictator.



I watched her media discussion yesterday.    Everyone had the opportunity to ask any questions they liked.    Now watching previous media events by all politicians, most journalists appear to go to these events well armed on questions they want to ask - usually nor relating to the topic being addressed.   Gillard was up there for over an hour and several times gave them the opportunity to lay any accusations at her.  No one could.   Bolt knows this - he is running away as has Mr Pickering.   The only thing Gilalrd gave way on - was that she should not have referred to it as a slush fund - that was it.

Now, if something has occurred that involves Gillard, then the full wrath of the law should apply - but to date - everything bought up has just blown up in the presenter's face.    If they have evidence - produce it.  If not just let it go

Believe what you may, but that does not make this go away.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #265 - Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:49am
 
John Smith wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:45am:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:39am:
lisa.greek wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:36am:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:32am:
The AWU scandal - But it still comes back to that form


Hedley Thomas makes the point I’ve discussed in the post below - that Julia Gillard’s brilliant performance yesterday still did not resolve the real issue.

Why did the application she helped to prepare to register the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association not declare it was really a slush fund for her boyfriend?


The “slush fund” that Gillard had created three years earlier was a legal entity, an incorporated body, for the purpose of raising and holding funds for the re-election of union officials. It was designed to assist the personal advancement in the union of Gillard’s then boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, who was then the leader of the West Australian branch of the Australian Workers Union…

They could have called it the AWU re-election fund. Or the AWU vote-for-a-new-leader fund.

Instead, it was called the AWU Workplace Reform Association, a title completely at odds with its actual purpose. The written objects, or rules, for the association do not disclose the true purpose is to fund elections for union officials.

On the contrary, the rules stress purposes including the promotion of safer workplaces and skills training. In the formal application for the association, Gillard advised that it was formed for the purpose of “development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces”.

In this way, its purported purpose had nothing to do with its actual purpose - as a “slush fund” for the re-election of Gillard’s then boyfriend. This is Gillard’s Achilles heel.

Yesterday, Gillard said she had not signed the document to set up the association and had only provided legal advice. Further, she said if the fund supported “trade union officials who would stand on a platform about reform and improvements in workplaces”, then it had fulfilled its stated role. But this later explanation, at her hour-long media conference, remains difficult to reconcile with the facts....

The reality is that if any of the documents lodged with the West Australian government agency had disclosed that the association’s true purpose was as a “slush fund” to help in the election of union officials, it would not have been registered.

It would not have been eligible under the legislation that governed such associations....

In her answers yesterday, the Prime Minister deftly moved the goalposts.... Gillard said: “My understanding of the purpose of this association was to support the re-election of union officials who would run a campaign saying that they wanted re-election because they were committed to reforming workplaces in a certain way, to increasing occupational health and safety, to improving the conditions of the members of the union. That was my understanding of the purpose of the association, and so I provided legal advice for the association.”

There it is. If Gillard had given the WA government agency the same answer as she gave yesterday, the bureaucrats in Perth would likely have rejected the application outright. They would have seen it for what it was: a “slush fund” for the purpose of raising funds for the election of union officials.

Gillard’s explanations on this will raise more questions about trust, integrity and professionalism.


But Gillard yesterday brilliantly injected fresh and sexy topics for her side to debate: sexism, misogyny, the Mudoch hate media, the nasty Internet, the woman betrayed, American Tea Party politics and more. More red herrings than a fish factory.

(Subscription required.)

UPDATE

Graham Richardson is right:
Maybe it was because she was angry. Maybe it was because she had been goaded into action by a campaign she considered grossly unfair. This time the Prime Minister did what I have been desperately wanting her to do. She took charge. There was a commanding air about her and from the moment she began you knew this was a truly formidable woman.

Graham Richardson is wrong:

I will speak and write no more on this affair


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comm...



I sBolty throwing a tanty - or is he worried about his job?   It's not just a bunch of aboriginals this time - this could blow right up in his face if he goes further - and he knows it!   Sook!!!

Why would it blow up. Just because gillard ambushed the media that was not prepared to ask her questions, does not make this go away.

If there are questions to answer, then the media has every right to get to the bottom of it and not to be scared of some dictator.


she ambushed the media and it was not prepared?  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
you really are nuts aren't you? your talking about the same media thats had been crying out for supposed answers for weeks prior to this media conference .... what were they crying out for if they didn't know what the questions they wanted answered were? .. your a joke .... like Gillard said, a nut job on the internet ....

how cute, quoting a known lying PM.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71950
Gender: male
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #266 - Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:51am
 
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:49am:
John Smith wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:45am:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:39am:
lisa.greek wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:36am:
progressiveslol wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:32am:
The AWU scandal - But it still comes back to that form


Hedley Thomas makes the point I’ve discussed in the post below - that Julia Gillard’s brilliant performance yesterday still did not resolve the real issue.

Why did the application she helped to prepare to register the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association not declare it was really a slush fund for her boyfriend?


The “slush fund” that Gillard had created three years earlier was a legal entity, an incorporated body, for the purpose of raising and holding funds for the re-election of union officials. It was designed to assist the personal advancement in the union of Gillard’s then boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, who was then the leader of the West Australian branch of the Australian Workers Union…

They could have called it the AWU re-election fund. Or the AWU vote-for-a-new-leader fund.

Instead, it was called the AWU Workplace Reform Association, a title completely at odds with its actual purpose. The written objects, or rules, for the association do not disclose the true purpose is to fund elections for union officials.

On the contrary, the rules stress purposes including the promotion of safer workplaces and skills training. In the formal application for the association, Gillard advised that it was formed for the purpose of “development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces”.

In this way, its purported purpose had nothing to do with its actual purpose - as a “slush fund” for the re-election of Gillard’s then boyfriend. This is Gillard’s Achilles heel.

Yesterday, Gillard said she had not signed the document to set up the association and had only provided legal advice. Further, she said if the fund supported “trade union officials who would stand on a platform about reform and improvements in workplaces”, then it had fulfilled its stated role. But this later explanation, at her hour-long media conference, remains difficult to reconcile with the facts....

The reality is that if any of the documents lodged with the West Australian government agency had disclosed that the association’s true purpose was as a “slush fund” to help in the election of union officials, it would not have been registered.

It would not have been eligible under the legislation that governed such associations....

In her answers yesterday, the Prime Minister deftly moved the goalposts.... Gillard said: “My understanding of the purpose of this association was to support the re-election of union officials who would run a campaign saying that they wanted re-election because they were committed to reforming workplaces in a certain way, to increasing occupational health and safety, to improving the conditions of the members of the union. That was my understanding of the purpose of the association, and so I provided legal advice for the association.”

There it is. If Gillard had given the WA government agency the same answer as she gave yesterday, the bureaucrats in Perth would likely have rejected the application outright. They would have seen it for what it was: a “slush fund” for the purpose of raising funds for the election of union officials.

Gillard’s explanations on this will raise more questions about trust, integrity and professionalism.


But Gillard yesterday brilliantly injected fresh and sexy topics for her side to debate: sexism, misogyny, the Mudoch hate media, the nasty Internet, the woman betrayed, American Tea Party politics and more. More red herrings than a fish factory.

(Subscription required.)

UPDATE

Graham Richardson is right:
Maybe it was because she was angry. Maybe it was because she had been goaded into action by a campaign she considered grossly unfair. This time the Prime Minister did what I have been desperately wanting her to do. She took charge. There was a commanding air about her and from the moment she began you knew this was a truly formidable woman.

Graham Richardson is wrong:

I will speak and write no more on this affair


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comm...



I sBolty throwing a tanty - or is he worried about his job?   It's not just a bunch of aboriginals this time - this could blow right up in his face if he goes further - and he knows it!   Sook!!!

Why would it blow up. Just because gillard ambushed the media that was not prepared to ask her questions, does not make this go away.

If there are questions to answer, then the media has every right to get to the bottom of it and not to be scared of some dictator.


she ambushed the media and it was not prepared?  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
you really are nuts aren't you? your talking about the same media thats had been crying out for supposed answers for weeks prior to this media conference .... what were they crying out for if they didn't know what the questions they wanted answered were? .. your a joke .... like Gillard said, a nut job on the internet ....

how cute, quoting a known lying PM.


she only lies sometimes ..in this case she was telling the truth, you really are a nut job
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
philperth2010
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 19597
Perth
Gender: male
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #267 - Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:58am
 
Over an hour of intense questioning where the media had every opportunity to expose any wrong doing and ask the questions Tony Abbott claims the media where entitled to ask.....Now cretins from the right are making claims she still has questions to answer.....Anyone who still reads the Australian opinion spread sheet must now accept it is a crap publication that has no ethics at all.....News Ltd should lose its licence for deliberately lying to the public IMO!!!

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #268 - Aug 24th, 2012 at 8:00am
 
philperth2010 wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:58am:
Over an hour of intense questioning where the media had every opportunity to expose any wrong doing and ask the questions Tony Abbott claims the media where entitled to ask.....Now cretins from the right are making claims she still has questions to answer.....Anyone who still reads the Australian opinion spread sheet must now accept it is a crap publication that has no ethics at all.....News Ltd should lose its licence for deliberately lying to the public IMO!!!

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

And not the PM. lol right.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71950
Gender: male
Re: Is Gillard about to be exposed
Reply #269 - Aug 24th, 2012 at 8:06am
 
philperth2010 wrote on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:58am:
Over an hour of intense questioning where the media had every opportunity to expose any wrong doing and ask the questions Tony Abbott claims the media where entitled to ask.....Now cretins from the right are making claims she still has questions to answer.....Anyone who still reads the Australian opinion spread sheet must now accept it is a crap publication that has no ethics at all.....News Ltd should lose its licence for deliberately lying to the public IMO!!!

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


I think they had a very valid point the other day when some politician suggested that they should fine reporters who deliberately lie and mislead ..... why should they be allowed to get away with it? i pay for a newspaper because i want the news, if I wanted sci fi I would by a novel .....
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 24
Send Topic Print