The Liberal Party and their media allies are spinning out of control, alleging a Government cover-up over Peter Slipper. In a forensic analysis of the case,
Vince O’Grady shows that, if anything, the reverse is true.
http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Sheehan...
Paul Sheehan from Fairfax — making absurd exaggerations about Peter Slipper.ON OCTOBER 18, Paul Sheehan
wrote an article in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled ‘Roxon’s calls on Slipper’s crudities show questionable judgement’.
He starts off his article with a test:
‘How long does it take to deduce whether the following text messages are sexual and in poor taste.’He then goes onto describe messages 11241, 11295, 10078 and 10080 in former Slipper staffer
James Ashby’s affidavit.He goes on to say:
‘It takes about eight seconds to read these messages. Confronted with DOZENS of similar messages it would have taken less than a minute to realise that the former speaker of the house, Peter Slipper, sent numerous lurid, unsolicited sexual messages to a STAFF member. Which means the Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, has a problem.’ [Emphasis mine.]That’s Sheehan’s story; the facts, however, tell a far different tale.
Here are some of these facts, backed up
by actual proof (as found in the publicly accessible court documents):
- 1. James Ashby made complaints about Peter Slipper to the Federal court of Australia on 20 April 2012.
- 2. He alleged sexual discrimination by Peter Slipper (The “Second Respondent”). The document actually says:
Sexual Harassment
- 4. Between January 2012 and March 2012, the Second Respondent made unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome sexual comments and unwelcome suggestions of a sexual nature to the Applicant.
- 3. James Ashby was offered a job by Peter Slipper as media adviser.
.......... - 11. On or about 15 October 2011, the Second Respondent enquired as to whether the Applicant would be interested in a role as a media adviser. A short time later, the Second Respondent officially offered the Applicant the role. The Applicant declined the offer. The Second Respondent was persistent with his offer.
- 12. On or about 27 October 2011, the Second Respondent again offered the Applicant the role. The Applicant again declined the offer.
4. Ashby accepts a job as an Adviser to Slipper.
13. By letter dated 5 December 2011 the Second Respondent later offered the Applicant employment as an Adviser on his personal staff as an ongoing employee, to be employed as a Personal Employee under Part III of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984.14. The Applicant accepted the position and commenced employment on or about 22 December 2011. The role involved work both in the Electorate Office in Queensland and in Canberra.
http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AshbySl...Looking at the texts in totum, James Ashby seemed to have a positive and amicable working relationship with Peter Slipper.The four messages referred to by Sheehan were private messages between two adults. They were sent by Slipper to Ashby (remember, this is
Ashby's phone records we are looking at here) as follows:
- 11241 on 28/10/2011. Did you lose your maidenhood again?
[read by Ashby]
- 11244 and 11245 (repeated) on 28/10/2011. Your virtual hymen
[read by Ashby]
- 10078 on 10/10/2012. Fully how we say that a person is a front bottoms when many guys like c**ts!
[read by Ashby]
- 10080 on 10/10/2012. They look like a mussell removed from its shell. Look at a bottle of mussel meat! Salty C**ts in brine
[read by Ashby]
Lets refer back to the facts.
Ashby was employed by Slipper by letter of offer on 5th December 2011. He commenced employment on 22 December 2011.
When these messages were sent and received, they were the private correspondence between two individuals and have no relation to the sexual harassment charges specified in the complaint because they also fall outside of those dates.
Ashby was not employed by Slipper when those messages were sent ― so there can have been no sexual harassment at that time.
Whilst the content of the text messages may be seen by some as offensive, the test for offense is whether or not the person was actually offended. In between messages 10078 and 10080 is message 10079; the sequence reads as follows:
- 10078 on 10/10/2012. Fully how we say that a person is a front bottoms when many guys like c**ts!
[read by Ashby].
- 10079 on 10/10/2012. Not I
[sent by Ashby].
- 10080 on 10/10/2012. They look like a mussell removed from its shell. Look at a bottle of mussel meat! Salty C**ts in brine
[read by Ashby].
The texts then go onto show more strategising about how they can get Mal Brough. In fact, the original language was about Brough, neither Ashby or Slipper liked him (at least according to the texts).
I will leave you to make up your mind as to whether Ashby was, in fact, offended by the vile language used in the texts by Slipper.
But how does this all add up to Nicola Roxon having a problem?
Well, the argument is that she knew about the vile and disgusting texts on June 9th when she was briefed.
Paul Sheehan says Roxon:
‘…was briefed about the hundreds of dubious and distasteful text messages sent by Slipper to his Staffer James Ashby.’The only relevant messages which are germane to the case are the messages during the dates between January and March 2012.
I have counted the relevant messages given in evidence during this time and they start from message #12522 on 1 January and conclude at #14336 on 28 February 2012. They include 691 messages (364 messages in January and 327 in February). Slipper sent Ashby 361 messages out of the 691 messages sent between the pair. That means that Ashby sent 330 messages back.
I have counted the number of messages Slipper sent to Ashby and made an evaluation of those that were potentially “dubious and distasteful”. There were 169 messages from Slipper to Ashby in January and 192 messages in February.
Forum
Pages: 1 
