Whichever way it is "sliced", it is not a good look when the Premier was in a "close personal relationship" with a man who (1) was a Minister in the Government she led, and (2) has made certain - what might be termed "damning" - admissions under affirmation at an ICAC inquiry.

As you point out, if the Conservative media is gunning for her, that's a doubly bad look.

You'd want to hope that -  post the Obeid saga -  Labor's closet has been fully and appropriately emptied of skeletons, if they're to take the moral high ground.

Above all else, though, it's confirmation of the need for robust ICACs in all jurisdictions.

Makes one wonder why, then, the Federal LNP are trying to establish the farcical "NIC", instead of a proper ICAC.

Leave Gladys alone, she was conned by a conman!  Happens to a lot of females.  He could have been her "soul mate" (so she thought).  Who knows? I feel sorry for her.

When I look at the hopeful leadership contenders waiting in the wings, I hope she weathers the storm.

Neferti wrote on Oct 16^th, 2020 at 11:15am:


Poor old Gladys. The problem is she's really really uggs. Now that usually isn't a problem as there is someone for everyone, but she's uggs, and intelligent and in a position of power so she won't settle for some equally uggs guy who works at the Reject Shop.

I reckon here dance card was never very full so when a bloke in a reasonably similar position to her paid her some attention, she took it.

You should all beware of perpetuating the myth of female lack of personal responsibility. 

As Janet Albrechtsen said, on the one hand it makes of women the children that many of them are in reality and removes their personal sovereignty, and thus their 'right' to function as fully participating members of society.   Until they are made fully responsible for their own actions instead of being treated like children, they will always remain second class.

On the other hand, it perpetuates the myth that men are responsible for every wrong, and thus are open to attack on any field at any time - in this day and age, most sinisterly in the West - on the grounds that they MIGHT be guilty of something in the future, or - even worse - that they must have been guilty of it at some time in the past so there is no reason to not attack them when they have done nothing now.

i.e. - Men Evil/Women Angels - one of the myths that is surely but slowly destroying the West as we knew it.... and causing shattered families, destroyed family economies, kids on the rampage, poverty on the major scale for the many, and many deaths and injuries.

Stop The War On Men!

Gladys is just as responsible for their actions as Maguire is.... get used to it.... and the fact that she continued with the "on/off relationship" for two years after he was in deep do-do is indicative of a mind either guilty or incapable of handling the truth and establishing her priorities.

I sympathise with her to some extent and feel she may well be a nice person, but she IS a political animal and thus sociopathic in behaviour - and as Gordon said long ago - she is not a fifteen year old school girl.... she is the State Premier, and her judgement here is savagely in question. 

You don't say that a surgical stuff-up is just a thing for some lady surgeon, chuck her cheeks and so, oh, well - "your (male) teachers didn't do well enough for you", do you?

Gladys will not stand down, since to do so would be to admit guilt... and her party would die a million deaths (or cause a million deaths) before admitting such a thing... but I predict she will weather this with a little tarnish, will be polished up and spruiked anew to a gullible public, and an adequate period of time will be allowed to elapse, before being quietly retired to take up with 'that person' Maguire again.

Catch me if you can ..........

sadly women are the first to condemn a women for being a well....... women wanting a man in their life even if they are unworthy....she didnt even tell her family about him.....what does that tell you???....

at the end of the day she looks a fool....and she knows it....he is more than despicable  as he doesnt seem in the least embarrassed by all this.....hes probably writing his book as we chat....

of course she should have  backed away a long time ago.. but women forgive.. remember?.. we tend to believe their lies.....I will never do it again..

is a good one..

sadly this saga has turned into a gladys saga   when hes the one that should be in the headlines..

Mix_Master wrote on Oct 16^th, 2020 at 8:16am:



The thing is - regardless of her personal feelings about her totally honest approach to Maguire's issues - she knew enough to say she didn't need to know any more - which clearly indicates she knew enough to know better.

TECHNICALLY she may say she knew nothing.. NOTHING! ... but the reality is she knew the background enough to know it was suspect.

Her proper course of action should have been to say:-

"We really DO need to talk about all this, and preferably with someone independent along to give sound advice.  Just my KNOWING of your activities which may be suspect is cause for serious caution and concern."

Instead she swept it under the carpet while perhaps honestly feeling that she was doing nothing wrong by simply not hearing every detail of what she had to know was a suspect deal, and hid it for over two years.

This does not speak well of anyone who would do that, regardless of their feelings of personal integrity... more properly read 'calculated confusion'.

See my blurb below.... that might clarify it for you if you're a bit slow off the mark...