Home > Current Affairs, Human Interest, Human Rights, Politics - Domestic, Politics - International, The EYE-BALL Opinion > EYE-BALL Opinion – A slithering, slimy, spitting Lizard – Gillard’s been hiding in the Tall Grass – now exposed –

EYE-BALL Opinion – A slithering, slimy, spitting Lizard – Gillard’s been hiding in the Tall Grass – now exposed –

November 29, 2012

Latest ‘EYE-BALL Opinion’ Posts:

– 26th Nov – The Collective v the Abstract – Gillard is aware of her wrong doings –

– 25th Nov – Distressed Damsel Gillard’s Black Knight – Bruce Wilson’s 11th hour offer to defend Gillard –

– 24th Nov – The Jewish v Arab problem – A naive perspective –

– 24th Nov – Hedley Thomas plunges the knife – Gillard mortally wounded –

– 23rd Nov – Immigration and Asylum Seekers – What is the real answer –

– 20th Nov – Schoolies Week Starts – The Booze for Kids debate again heats up –

– 16th Nov – How Deep does the AWU corruption cover-up go? – An exposé on innuendo, evidence, hearsay and conjecture –

– 15th nov – Hedley Thomas exploding on Gillard – Gillard has a case to answer … –

– 14th Nov – Gillard behaves like a Guilty Person – Asks for allegations to be made –

– 14th Nov – The Australian Media – Lapdog’s at best – absolutely lost the plot on integrity, and their charter of responsibility –

– 9th Nov – Open Letter to “The Independents” Re: –
– Julia Gillard, Peter Slipper, and Craig Thompson, three MP’s who bring continued shame to our Parliament –

– 9th Nov – “Courage is an Angle” – the difference between a good day and a great day –

– 8th Nov – RUDD fires a broadside aimed at GILLARD – done under a burka to hide its true intent –

– 6th Nov – Gillard’s caucus and union support in revolt – her position becoming more untenable by the day –

– 5th Nov – Referendum Discussion Part 1 – Compulsory Voting – Eye-Ball’s – “None of the Above Campaign” –

– 4th Nov – Gillard Sunburnt – the flames of discontent begin to impact –

– 2nd Nov – A Montage of AWU Scandal Reports – Gillard to become “Open-Season” –

– 1st Nov – Education … A white Elephant – Politicising the future of young Australians –

– 30th Oct – How do you awake a slumbering nation – Politicians – the most empty of vessels –

– 30th Oct – Whistleblowers – love ‘em’ or hate ‘em’ –

– 29th Oct – Polls pressure Abbott’s Leadership – Worst PM ever holds lead and flaunts her position –

– 28th Oct – Eye-Ball’s “YUCK FILES -1” – ABC’s “Insiders” – Barry Cassidy –

– To see more EYE-BALL ‘Opinion’ posts:

click here …

– a slithering, slimy, spitting Lizard –
– Gillard’s been hiding in the Tall Grass – now exposed –
| Author: EYE-BALL Opinion | 29th Nov 2012 |
All week the  Opposition’s tactic has been to try to entrap the PM in a lie, or misleading the House.   The tactic has looked farcical at times with Gillard using return hubris to dump on the Deputy Opposition Leader, and the Opposition Leader.

The HOR Hansard record of Question Time events yesterday can be read using this link – HOR Hansard 28th Nov 2012

[Page 50 of the Hansard record, and page 66 of the PDF file record.   The link to the Hansard record of all sittings of the HOR this week is here.]

The arrogance shown all week by the PM does not carry the levity of say a Keating, or a Bob Hawke.  Howard could never behave like this and that was one of his strengths … but to see some of the facial masks Gillard has used this week, her tone changes turning her into whining, screeching, ‘bitch in heat’ type performances, and though she be the PM, she has never shown the Office she represents the respect it deserves.

This behaviour coming from a sitting PM – whilst playing down the woman aspect for fear of being labeled a ‘misogynist sexist nutjob’ … the performance of the PM all week and for her time in the job has and continues to makes one very uncomfortable.   Gillard’s performance in the House this week will be her undoing – the Australian people do not like bully’s – and Gillard has proved to what lengths she will go to prove she is a misandryst and will use her sex leverage to attack anybody who threatens her.

Australian women and men will judge her … the pride the women had in her becoming our first female PM will and is evaporating – all a result of the way she has behaved in the position of PM – and how her misandryst mantra is damaging women’s issues all over the world.

To add to this – how can anyone respect a ‘crook’ with a past that besmirches the integrity of the Office of the Prime Minister.

Close inspection by observers of body language inform the signs Gillard has put out this week is not all bravado.  She has wavered at times.

Just how close some of the Opposition’s questions have come near the mark can only truly be known by Gillard.   The body language observers confirm that Gillard is showing she has something to hide in her return fire.

Her tactic all week has been to counter-attack and for the most it has worked, as demonstrated by her early fire press conference an hour before Question Time on Monday last.

The Opposition has looked largely ineffective in their performance allowing Gillard to dance around the Deputy Opposition Leaders questions.  That was up until last night … the shit hit the fan and today’s House session will be defining.

On Lateline last night – the ‘smoking gun’ was revealed – or evidence that it did exist.  It’s existence was alluded to earlier that day when Shadow AG Senator George Brandis spoke in the Senate and labeled Gillard in a way that many have wanted to hear for a long time.

Mr Brandis’ Senate speech is presented below:  [Hansard record linked here – refer page 36 of the Hansard Record – and page 48 of the PDF file.]

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:29):

For more than a year, and increasingly over recent weeks, there has been growing concern over the scandal involving the Australian Workers’ Union Workplace Reform Association—described by Ms Julia Gillard as ‘a slush fund’—the use of the association to defraud AWU members and donors to the fund, and the role of Ms Gillard in the creation and operation of the fund. The Prime Minister’s response to the scandal has used every tool in the political spin-master’s kit. First she sought to discredit and professionally damage the journalists who broke the story. Then she ridiculed it. Pre-emptive press conferences were used as a device to avoid answering specific and detailed questions on the floor of the parliament. But, as new and more damaging facts have emerged on an almost daily basis, the Prime Minister’s attempts to portray the story as insubstantial and fanciful—to laugh it off and deride her accusers—have come to seem increasingly desperate and improbable.

The allegations against her are serious, they are made by experienced and credible people and they cannot be ignored. They come from both of the national newspapers, the Australian and the Australian Financial Review, as well as the other Fairfax titles, the television networks, including the national broadcaster—somewhat late to the party, it must be said, but nevertheless now pursuing the issue with vigour—and, now, virtually the whole of the Australian media. The journalists who have led the investigation include Hedley Thomas, one of Australia’s most awarded investigative journalists, with five Walkley Awards to his name; Leigh Sales of ABC’s 7.30; Mark Baker of the Age and Laura Tingle of the Australian Financial Review—hardly right-wing ‘nut jobs’. The reality is that the Prime Minister faces serious and specific allegations of improper conduct, and possible illegality, which go to her personal integrity and fitness for office. Her tactic of ridiculing her accusers and avoiding the issue only reinforces the growing public perception that she has something to hide.

Amid all the complexities of the various legal transactions and money flows, the central facts of the case are essentially quite simple. In 1992, the AWU Workplace Reform Association was established as a vehicle for fraud. In the course of the next few years, the substantial sums of money paid into the bank account operated by the association—both by innocent members of the AWU and commercial donors like Thiess, wishing to support its ostensibly honest objectives—were diverted to the personal use and benefit of two AWU officials in particular, Mr Bruce Wilson, then the Victorian State Secretary of the AWU, and Mr Ralph Blewitt, who has been described as his ‘close associate’. Among other things, $100,000 of those funds—effectively, stolen money—were used towards the purchase of a house at 85 Kerr Street, Fitzroy for the benefit of Bruce Wilson. In an interview on 7.30 last night, Wilson confirmed the use of moneys from the fund for that acquisition. For reasons which have never been explained, the property was purchased in the name of Ralph Blewitt under a power of attorney given to Wilson. The solicitor who drew the power of attorney was Ms Gillard. Ms Gillard was also involved in the conveyance of the property, and indeed attended the auction in February 1993.

The association was a sham from the start. It was set up on the advice of Ms Gillard, then a partner of the law firm Slater & Gordon, and she acted professionally in its establishment. The AWU was a client of Ms Gillard’s firm. At the time, Wilson was in a personal relationship with Ms Gillard. This fact itself raises issues of potential conflict of interest. It also demonstrates the implausibility of Ms Gillard’s attempts to characterise her involvement as an arm’s length professional transaction of whose nature and context she was unaware.

It is important to understand Ms Gillard’s knowledge of the nature and purpose of the AWU Workplace Reform Association, for that is a central issue in the case. This is how Ms Gillard described the association in her exit interview from Slater & Gordon on 11 September 1995:

It’s common practice, indeed every union has what it refers to as a re-election fund, slush fund, whatever, which is the funds that the leadership team, into which the leadership team puts money so that they can finance their next election campaign. … they can cost $10,000, $20,000—they’re not cheap. So the usual mechanism people use to amass that amount of money is that they require the officials who ran on their ticket to enter payroll deduction schemes where money each week or fortnight goes from their pay into a bank account which is used for re-election purposes from time to time. They also have different fundraisers, dinners and raffles and so on, to amass the necessary amount of money to mount their re-election campaign.

She went on to say:

” … The thinking behind the forming of incorporated associations is that it had been our experience that if you did it in a less formal way, you just had someone, say Fred Bloggs, say, oh look, I’ll just open a bank account and everybody can put the money into there, the problem developed that when the leadership team fractured, as relatively commonly happens, you got into a very difficult dispute about who was the owner of the monies in the bank account, so it was better to have an incorporated association, a legal entity, into which people could participate as members, that was the holder of the account.” …

So there is no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that, at the time she was involved in setting up the slush fund, Ms Gillard knew what its purpose was—indeed, the choice of an incorporated association as the entity to hold the funds for union election purposes was Ms Gillard’s brainchild, her ‘thinking’, as she said.

However the objects of the association, set out in rule 3 of the rules, do not disclose that the purpose of the association was to be a holding entity for trade union election campaign funds. A variety of vaguely-expressed, rather innocuous objects are recited, declaring the association to be for the advancement of workers’ wellbeing and like purposes, not to finance the election of the ticket of a faction of officials within the union. On a fair reading of the objects clause, the conclusion seems inescapable that the provision is written to conceal, not to explain, its purpose. The concealment of the true purpose of the association is even more plain from an advertisement placed in the West Australian newspaper, which describes the purposes of the association as follows:

The Association is formed for the purpose of propagating and encouraging workplace reform for workers performing construction and maintenance work.

It is important to set out subclause 2 of the objects clause, which provides:

The property and income of the Association must be applied solely in accordance with the objects of the Association and no part of that property or income may be paid or otherwise distributed, directly or indirectly, to members, except in good faith in the promotion of those objects.
But that was not to be.

If it was Ms Gillard’s ‘thinking’ and Wilson’s and Blewitt’s intention to set up the association as a device for deceiving contributing members and external donors into believing that their donations would be used consistently with the objects of the association or, indeed, for a purpose associated with the broader objectives of the AWU itself, but in fact the money was to be used for their own private purposes—namely, their election campaigns—then, at that stage, there was a conspiracy to defraud the donors, and all persons who assisted in or facilitated the setting up of the organisation, with that awareness, were parties to the conspiracy to defraud.

In the extract from her exit interview which I have quoted, Ms Gillard in effect admitted that, at the time, she knew that the funds would be used not for the purposes indicated by the name and objects of the association but for the private purposes of Wilson and Blewitt. In other words, she knew the association she acted in setting up was to be used to deceive companies into donating money for a purpose alien to that which they thought their donations would be used for and members into contributing for a purpose alien to what they thought their contribution would be for. If that was the case, she was a party to a conspiracy to defraud.

One of the external donors, Thiess, actually says it was misled, and made a complaint to the police dated 22 August 1996. In the event that the Thiess funds were misapplied, there was a crime committed when they were paid—namely, the crime of obtaining money by false pretences. Furthermore, it was necessary, in order to obtain the registration of the association, for Ms Gillard, as the solicitor responsible, to certify to the Western Australian Corporate Affairs Commission that the association was being incorporated for a bona fide purpose consistent with the incorporating documents lodged. She did so. In doing so, she made a knowingly false declaration which appears to be in breach of section 170 of the Western Australian criminal code.

Furthermore, the certification provision, section 5 of the Western Australian Associations Incorporation Act, also requires the applicant to verify that the association has more than five members. Ms Gillard did so. However, the association, as Ms Gillard well knew, only had two members—Wilson and Blewitt. While there might be room for argument about the vagueness of the objects, there is no vagary about this: Ms Gillard falsely certified the association to be compliant in respect of its number of members. She knew it was not and, once again, appears to have breached section 170 of the Western Australian Criminal Code. As well, since one of Slater & Gordon’s principal clients was the AWU, Ms Gillard must be taken to have been aware of the rules of that union. She must therefore have been aware of the fact that the establishment of such an association would have required a resolution of the executive of the union. No such resolution was ever passed. Ms Gillard either knew that or neglected to inform herself of it. The certification to the Western Australian Corporate Affairs Commission of compliance seems also to have been false in that respect.

One thing which makes this matter particularly suspicious is that no file was created. Thus, Ms Gillard’s work was effectively concealed from her firm, an issue about which she was challenged in her exit interview, and which ultimately meant that she had put Slater & Gordon into a position of conflict between two clients—the association and the Australian Workers Union itself, which resulted ultimately in the loss to that firm of the AWU, one of its biggest and most lucrative clients—no doubt one of the reasons for Ms Gillard’s hasty exit from the firm. The AWU work went to the rival Labor-associated law firm Maurice Blackburn and, by a remarkable coincidence, the solicitor who took it over is none other than the person who serves as Attorney-General in Ms Gillard’s government, Ms Nicola Roxon. To add further intrigue to the affair, the file containing the original documents, which would reveal in more detail Ms Gillard’s knowledge and involvement in this matter, has mysteriously and inexplicably disappeared from the archives of the Western Australian Corporate Affairs Commission and cannot be located.

I do not have time today to explore the subsequent use of the Workplace Reform Association to defraud its members, in particular by the acquisition of the Kerr Street property and the cash payments transacted through the fund. I will deal with those matters on a subsequent occasion. But it is already clear that, from its inception, Ms Julia Gillard’s involvement in this matter has been characterised by concealment, deception, professional misconduct and, it would appear, several breaches of the criminal law.

These are explosive allegations under privilege and are based on the evidence trail.  This statement began to trickle into the media arena late last night which led to the Emerson v Pyne Lateline debate that further ignited the flame under Gillard.  [Link to Lateline Iview replay with transcript of the Emerson v Pyne debate.]

The Australian‘ published further extracts from the S&G Gillard ‘exit interview’ to use Brandis’ language – which confirms what he alleged in the Senate – that extract is reproduce below:

Young Gillard answers the boss

| Author: Not Credited | Date: Nov 29th, 2012 | Link to On-Line Story. |

This is an extract from the transcript of a meeting between Slater & Gordon senior partner Peter Gordon, general manager Geoff Shaw and salaried partner Julia Gillard on September 11, 1995.

PETER GORDON: All right, well, let’s talk about the AWU Workplace Reform Association Account. That account, as you’ve said, is an account which was the account belonging to an incorporated association by the same name which was incorporated by Slater & Gordon at (Bruce) Wilson’s, on Wilson’s instructions following your advice to him which you described earlier.

JULIA GILLARD: That’s right.

PG: And that happened in or about mid-1992.

JG: That’s right.

PG: And last Monday I think you gave to Paul Mulvaney a follow-up which demonstrates that Slater & Gordon had drafted model rules for, for that, had submitted those rules to the relevant Western Australian government authority, that there’d been a letter from the authority suggesting that it might be a trade union and therefore ineligible for incorporation under that legislation, and that we had prepared a response submitted on Wilson’s instructions to that authority suggesting that in fact it wasn’t a trade union and arguing the case for its incorporation. My recollection is that all of that happened in or about mid-1992. Is that right?

JG: I wouldn’t want to be held to the dates without looking at the file, but whatever the dates the file shows are the right dates, so . . .

PG: Yes. And to the extent that work was done on that file in relation to that it was done by you?

JG: That’s right.

PG: And did you get advice from anyone else in the firm in relation to any of those matters?

JG: No I didn’t.

PG: Did Tony Lang have anything to do with the model rules or the drafting of them?

JG: No, I obtained, I had just in my own personal precedent file a set of rules for Socialist Forum which is an incorporated association in which I’m personally involved. Tony Lang and I drew those rules some years ago. Tony more than me. And I’ve just kept them hanging around as something I cut and paste from for drafting purposes, and I obtained, I don’t quite recall how now but I obtained the model rules under the WA act and I must have done the drafting just relying on those two sources. I don’t have any recollection of sitting down with Tony or any other practitioner and talking through the draft of the rules.

PG: Do you recall whether when it was necessary to argue the case with the, with the relevant Western Australian authority, whether you consulted anyone else in the firm as to what would or would not get, become acceptable or appropriate?

JG: I once again don’t recall talking to anybody else in the firm about it.

PG: Beyond that, and it seems from the file that after that letter it was successfully accepted as an incorporated association and duly was created and presumably accounts were set up. I should ask did we have anything to do with the setting up of the accounts or was that done by the officers of the incorporated association?

JG: Slater & Gordon didn’t have anything, did not have anything to do with setting up bank accounts for that association. We attended to the incorporation.

The Smoking Gun reference:

PG: Can I ask you then following the last thing that we did to setting up the incorporation, which appears from the file to be the letter arguing that it ought to be not construed as a trade union, did you have anything personally to do with that incorporated association afterwards?

JG: No I did not.

PG: Right, to the best of your knowledge did anyone at Slater & Gordon?

JG: To my knowledge no one at Slater & Gordon had anything to do with it post that time.

The Opposition’s tactic yesterday and all week has been to draw Gillard into a lie or a misleading of the House – yesterday’s question was asking Gillard whether she signed the ‘letter’ alluded to by Brandis.

The question was asked four times and Gillard ‘danced-around’ the question each time.  The question was: [page 56 of Hansard record – page 72 of the PDF file record.

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:34):

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s answer in the House on Monday as to whether she had written to the WA commissioner for corporate affairs to vouch for the bona fides of the AWU Workplace Reform Association:

… the association is only incorporated if the … authority … is satisfied … Clearly, the registrar must have been so satisfied, or they would not have incorporated the association.

Given the Prime Minister’s statement this week that she provided legal advice to establish the association and her failure to rule out writing to the commissioner on Monday, I ask the Prime Minister again: did she at any time write to the commissioner for corporate affairs to vouch for— (Time expired)

This question is different formats was asked several more times during the session – not once did Gillard give a direct response to the question.  It was obvious she was avoiding the answer because she knew that a truthful response would have her on the record and admitting her involvement in setting up the vehicle that was used to accomplish the fraud.

The evidence of the letter sent to the This WA Corporate Affairs has ‘gone missing’.  The file has been reported lost, as has the S&G file where a copy of this letter would normally be held on file.

It is not hard to make a case that a protective ‘cleansing’ has happened to protect Gillard and goes to a larger crime – that is t cover up a crime and will involve a great number more people and their connections that have the ability to make files disappear.

The evidence of the ‘letter in question’ is a part of the ‘dare-game’ Gillard is playing – ‘produce the letter or else it is all hearsay’.

She knows or has been advised by her puppet masters that the file has ‘gone’, and she can carry on the way she has in the House all week in the knowledge that all that she has to deal with is hearsay.   Should she get through today without losing too much more skin in the game, she will lead the Government into next year and perhaps beyond.

The Opposition need a defining day in the House today – a lot of it will play out before Question time happens … but the Speaker – all week struggling with remaining unbiased – will again be tested.

Both Independents – Windsor and Oakeshott appeared on ‘Capital hill’ late yesterday afternoon and expressed their desire to see the Parliament run full term.  A ‘vote of no-confidence’ can be discounted on the comments they both made.

They still have stars in their eyes over their position of importance in this minority Government.  This author has sent numerous e-mail messages to both these MP’s on the matter of Gillards integrity and her right to serve as the Prime Minister – never once have either sent a reply response.

I think they are both men who want to do good – and they both feel that this is their last term … why would they want to cut it short ?

Any talk by either of them about the people’s interest being served is false rhetoric – much as Emerson makes a fool of himself when he states the Australian people don’t want to hear or read anymore about the AWU scandal.  The misread is there … the Australian electorate may be treated as fools by this Government – yet they understand criminal behaviour and Gillard as a bees-dick away from being caught in her own honey trap.  If justice be served it will happen – but then how often is justice really served?

All the morning the lovesick Emerson continues to prostituted himself on National TV protesting Gillards innocence and that she ‘has done nothing wrong’ … he remains the biggest fool in Parliament.  He behaves like a juvenile love-sick goon who still pines for Gillard in a romantic way – he is blinded by his affection for his Leader.   It is obsessive like, and to think that in the context of him being a Minister serving the highest office in the land – Emerson’s continued defense of the PM is sheer lunacy.

As a ALP voter all my life – with the alternative – ‘None of the Above’ vote cast in half a dozen elections during that life – I find this ALP Government not worthy of office – I never voted for Gillard, I did vote for Rudd … and most of Australia who did vote for Rudd have never forgiven Gillard and the Unions for what they did.

That is my motive in pursuing Gillard – she has never been worthy in my eyes … yet this Cabinet full of her ex-lovers feel they are safe as long as Gillard is safe – hence their unqualified support.  If Gillard goes so do they … one hell of a motive to stand before the whole Nation and lie about what they know about what happened and give Gillard their support based on what they have been told – not on what the evidence proves did happen.


Today – more of the same mis-direction and obfuscation by Gillard – she will not give a direct answer – if she does she knows the flood gates will open … this will be decided by Caucus who will respond to the poll data – if Gillard retains her current levels then she will not be rolled – that is what Politics has come to in this Nation –

A PM with a past that will see her former friend and ex-lover most probably go to jail for deeds that were facilitated by Julia Gillard – our PM … where has the integrity of all MP’s gone … where is the moral ground example from our Leadership?

Gillard has besmirched the office of the PM for the next in line to serve and for those that follow.  She has no idea what her performance means in the long term.  She demonstrates daily that she is without conscience, without morality,  she possesses integrity that can be best described as – ‘you’ve done nothing wrong unless others can prove you have done something wrong’ …

This Nation is a step away from protests and violence over this issue … if that happens will Gillard then get the message …

Comment contributor Gerry was right – a joint Task Force by Victorian and WA police to investigae this matter in full is a solution if the Opposition can’t get the job done in setting up a Royal Commission …

Please – if you found this story to your liking and would like to promote it to your social media contacts – i.e. Twitter, Facebook, or other icon linked account below – please click your favoured Icon(s) to promote the story. Thankyou.

Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s

The EYE-BALL Opinion …

  1. barry
    November 29, 2012 at 9:52 am

    Quote:-[This Nation is a step away from protests and violence over this issue … if that happens will Gillard then get the message …]

    Seems they’ll drag her to the gallows before she admits to what she has done .

    Seems also like a scene from years long ago , that we , as an educated, and mature society, had thought we had progressed and moved on from.

    Julia Gillard apparently prefers to live in that era. She just needs to be shown the error of her ways .
    Sadly , she doesn’t appear to believe there “are” errors in her ways .

    Although she “is” starting to show a few cracks in the amour.

    Perhaps there is a little of humanity in there after all.

    However the coming demise doesn’t appear to be pleasant.

    Her most favourable option now would be to step down , and disappear to some place on the planet a little more favourable to her .
    As I doubt Australians will be too quick to forgive what she has imposed on them .

  2. Des
    November 29, 2012 at 10:12 am

    Today’s opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald is of interest: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-must-go-says-pyne-20121129-2ah0u.html

  3. Gerry Hatrick
    November 29, 2012 at 10:32 am

    The storming of the Sydney Stock Exchange on November 11, 1975 was many things. At the time it was militancy gone too far, but years later it became funny, due to the absolute cowardice displayed by the senior traders cowering under the trading booth desks, in fear of the revolution.

    Most importantly the entire episode is not acceptable in a modern 1st world economy.

    Julia Gillard prefers to call our Australian society as pluralist rather than democratic. Democracy only occurs through election cycle. In every argument it takes two to fight. Our democracy demands that these issues be settled through fair fighting. Rational, reasoned, decent and not allowing matters to get out of hand. Legal due process is a series of steps to prevent mayhem, like lynch mobs. You can not condone anyone taking the law into their own hands. Yet sadly too many perceive that is exactly where our PM and her cronies are.

    Julia, it is time to do the right thing and stand aside (go to the back benches) while a full and proper inquiry into this entire mess is taken (hopefully not too long in time). Leveson enquiry has only today been delivered to British PM Cameron. It has taken 16 odd months to get to this stage and won’t end anytime soon due to the complicity of Cameron having hired Andy Coulson.

    Can the ALP find an able care taker PM? One without factional interest?

    It simply should never have got to this.

    If all else fails go to the polls, and let the electorate decide. Is there any merit in any of the bovine excreta coming from any of this, including the jaundiced perspective of Craig Emerson saying the People of Australia are sick of this. It is far better than some type of civil war. For mine I am sick of the debasing of justice, equity and fairness.

  4. david the pragmatist
    November 29, 2012 at 10:47 am

    I have as much interest in seeing Gillard go BUT I am not convinced this letter is the smoking gun that you “desperate Gillard haters” are hoping for.
    The rhetoric is there but I do not feel she could be charged with anything yet.
    A colleague suggested that the various state law enforcement agencies should investigate the “cleansing” of the information records within the various departments. Also i still believe there is a justification to having Slater & Gordon looked at by the law society.

    One little question I would ask all you people that have been so agitated over these issues is:
    Is it it worth while getting Gillard at the expenses of leaving Abbott and Bishop in there roles?

    ie Gillard will not last any longer than the next election, why not try and get Abbott and Bishop before they get in there and show the same ineptitude they have displayed in this process, face it Gillard has “mangled’ them tactically and in all other ways relative to the parliament. Abbot and Bishop are not worthy of the roles they will inherit!

  5. November 29, 2012 at 11:49 am

    She won’t step down Barry as you well know – not without a push from the caucus … but that would then mean most of the front bench would have have to go basis their blind support in their knowledge despite their first hand knowledge of the AWU scandal …

  6. November 29, 2012 at 11:52 am

    Thanks des … Fairfax are late to the party but here now … Gillard has lost her battle to hold this story up … it will free-wheel now …

  7. November 29, 2012 at 11:54 am

    Gerry – as always you bring relevance to the discussion … thankyou for your continued support and free expression.

  8. Des
    November 29, 2012 at 11:58 am

    All starting to gather momentum now – surely she can’t last til the weekend…

  9. November 29, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    Looking forward as you always do – yes the Abbott/Bishop ticket as the alternative has retreat options as week as the go forward belief.

    We live in interesting times – and I ponder a life as a kangaroo [male of course] … lying in the sun, waiting for the energy to cover my harem … and then to go back to eating green grass free of charge, before I go off again to lie in the sun … not a care in the world if the environmentalists can protect my habitat … what a life, what could be better …

    Weigh that up with the likes of Gillard or Abbott running our lives … pressures on mortgages, health, childcare, education, retirement, bills, food quality, international considerations … who thinks the human race are the most satisfied species on the planet?

    David – I know the spiritist in you envy the kangaroo … so do I.

  10. Barry M
    November 29, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    I would rather have a person who displays human decency (Abbott) than the raving harridan who is Gillard. And of those who say there is not much to him, how many of you are Rhodes Scholars. He has his faults but he will do me until someone better comes along. A major problem is that we have become too much of a “here and now, right this minute” society.
    Old adages do not seem to be known or understood by many today. It is ironic that an adage from ‘biblical’ times will be the instrument that fells an ‘atheist’ Prime Minister. Now, tell me the adage

  11. Des
    November 29, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    “I would rather have a person who displays human decency”

    Hear Hear

    Whilst Abbott may lack in some areas, he appears morally and ethically good. This can’t be understated.

  12. November 29, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    “They who live by the sword, shall die by the sword” ???

  13. Barry M
    November 29, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Eye Ball…….good one but not the one I had in mind

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: