http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-14/jamie-clements-resigns/7088372

New South Wales ALP general secretary Jamie Clements has resigned from his role amid federal pressure over accusations of sexual harassment.

Earlier on Thursday Mr Shorten said he had "stepped in" to help resolve the continuing scandal.

"I have no tolerance for workplace harassment in any set of circumstances," he said.

"This morning I have contacted the state president of the NSW Labor Party and asked him to provide a report to my national secretary on matters relating to NSW.

"The NSW branch has been handling this matter, it's a party matter ... I have now stepped in."

Mr Clements also released a statement on the deal reached yesterday, saying it was not an admission of guilt on his part.

"I have cooperated fully through this process and am pleased it has reached a resolution which allows all involved to move forward," he said.

"I have always contested the version of events which has been publicly reported and the agreement reached today is without admission on my part."

I don't like Clements at all, nor the ALP as a whole. But it seems to me that this is a case of "he said, she said" with no corroborating witnesses for either him or her and therefore a very difficult case to prove one way or the other. It's essentially her word against his. We've seen women make false allegations in the past and seen men have no choice other than to cop it because the woman is believed instead of the man. I'm not saying Clements is innocent or guilty of these allegations, but what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Everyone with red blood knows that women have all the power when it comes to pvssy - every red-blooded man wants to exercise her asset to its fullest extent... and therefore it is obvious where the controlling power in the relationship truly lies.

What we've seen here is a past consensual one nighter - followed by the woman not getting her career moves in return (not being elected into the warm and fuzzy comfy seat with all the perks and power that she feels she deserves - politics is like that sometimes) - then using  the threat of exposing that past one-nighter as a lever to get something she wanted - then being told that is a very bad idea - followed by what reads like an attempt at reconcilation by the dope concerned, which -since he allegedly holds power in the relationship (read above) - means he was harassing her.

A fine warning to all dopes who think the office staff are there for the plucking, especially in Labor politics where the ambitions of women know no bounds and no boundaries of civilised behaviour, and they will stoop (sic) at nothing to get what they want.

And they wonder why the electorate won't vote for them unless they are forced on the electorate by quota.... Jayzuz.

Also a good bell ringer for understanding the true power in male/female relationships and time to stop painting the little girlies as victims of rampant penises when they willingly and enthusiastically engage in sexual behaviour (even when it is out of bounds with 'family' men).

A man has a brain and a penis.. but only enough blood to control one at a time...

cods wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 8:55am:



... including the right to use that past shag as a lever to get something from the other person......  review your studies on power within relationships....

One fine argument for not having women in politics, I'm sorry to say.. everyone must be getting sick of this by now.....

The only reason bull shitten stepped in is because his polls are already bad enough and that its an election year...

What a grub...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 8:27am:


Yes, I'd agree with that.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:31am:



yes him or Abbott...looks very suss..maybe that why shortarse got involved..... another weapon for him to use in his.debate.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 10:42am: