Julia Gillard - liar

[bit_pattern]

Why are you wasting your time, lionking?

[wombatwal]

This AWU scandal certainly has some legs.
I thought it would die out due to a lack of evidence.
It certainly seems to be growing longer legs.
I don't know if Gillard knew about her ex-boyfriend stealing union funds to buy a house.
I don't know if Gillard helped her then boyfriend in conveyancing work for the house.

I saw the 7.30 report with Nick Styant-Browne, and the accusations that he made.

There is a Slater and Gordon conveyancing file headed Bruce Wilson, regarding a bank letter about mortgage insurance, saying "Ralph spoke to Julia Gillard."
If Gillard knows she has not been truthful about her knowledge of the affair she should speak out and resign the Prime Minister-ship.
If she only thinks of herself she will stay put.
If she has the welfare of the party she will resign, that is if she is guilty.
Who will lead the party if she resigns, I do not know.
If the party wants a chance at the next election then Rudd is the obvious candidate, anyone else is too much of a risk.
Let's wait and see.

[Hallo Alfie]

And a nice little summary. Someone is thinking logically about this.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by wombatwal

This AWU scandal certainly has some legs.
I thought it would die out due to a lack of evidence.
It certainly seems to be growing longer legs.
I don't know if Gillard knew about her ex-boyfriend stealing union funds to buy a house.
I don't know if Gillard helped her then boyfriend in conveyancing work for the house.

It is a case of never mind the quality, feel the width. Or rather, the more we find out about the criminal behaviour of Wilson and Blewitt, the guiltier Gillard must be. Not logical reasoning.

Quote:

I saw the 7.30 report with Nick Styant-Browne, and the accusations that he made.

All they were was an opinion. No evidence of anything. Styant-Brown thinks she knew more. That's it, he has an opinion. If you were to go to court with that, it would not be admissable as evidence. Scepticism requires evidence and logic, not opinions.

She resigned because her poor choice in boyfriend had caused her and the firm embarrassment. In her defence, the charismatic Wilson type of person often fools otherwise sensible women for a while.

Quote:

There is a Slater and Gordon conveyancing file headed Bruce Wilson, regarding a bank letter about mortgage insurance, saying "Ralph spoke to Julia Gillard."

Conveyancing is done by para-legals, in the name of a lawyer. The lawyer actually does nothing. The speaking would have been something of the nature of "I've done that conveyancing for you".

Quote:

If Gillard knows she has not been truthful about her knowledge of the affair she should speak out and resign the Prime Minister-ship.

If "If" is all you have, then that's nothing. If she is secretly an alien seeking to destroy the human race, she should also resign.

There have also been claims that Gillard should have gone to the police. Try and make that a law and see how far you get. Lawyers are required to go to the police and dob in their clients when they know they are guilty of something. The legal fraternity would have a collective heart attack. The fact is, most companies experience fraud on a regular basis. On a regular basis, they hush it up, and shut it down. I worked for a large financial company for a while. An auditor told me tales of fraud that had been uncovered, and shut down, and people sacked. They would not go to the police, though.

[lionking]

Despite the forest worth of paper devoted to this matter, there has been absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing my Gillard. Zip. Nada.

[wombatwal]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Quote:

It is a case of never mind the quality, feel the width. Or rather, the more we find out about the criminal behaviour of Wilson and Blewitt, the guiltier Gillard must be. Not logical reasoning.

I am not inferring anything of the kind. This is your faulty logic on what I wrote.

Quote:

If "If" is all you have, then that's nothing. If she is secretly an alien seeking to destroy the human race, she should also resign.

They are "iffs". But all of this is damaging to the Labor Party. The last thing I want is a Conservative Government lead by Abbott.
Gillard has to do what is best for the party, and, IFF she is guilty, she knows if she is, or not. She should do the right thing and resign.
I am not calling for her to resign.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by wombatwal

I am not inferring anything of the kind. This is your faulty logic on what I wrote.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing on Gillard's part. There is a lot of noise, which is all about what other people have done. There is a lot of opinion, which is not evidence. In the old days of journalism, if there was something to find someone guilty of, then they would present the evidence. So far, all we get is innuendo and opinion, they haven't even finished the basic groundwork, yet are publishing. Perhaps she is guilty of something, when you get the story that she is, let me know. Until then, a note that someone spoke to Gillard, without any idea of what was discussed, is useless. Para-legals do routine conveyancing all the time without doing anything more than a formal signoff at the end. The lawyer does nothing other than sign their name to it.

Quote:

They are "iffs". But all of this is damaging to the Labor Party. The last thing I want is a Conservative Government lead by Abbott.
Gillard has to do what is best for the party, and, IFF she is guilty, she knows if she is, or not. She should do the right thing and resign.
I am not calling for her to resign.

If Abbott is guilty of anything, if Swann is guilty of anything, if anyone is guilty of anything, they should step aside. First of all, find her guilty of something.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by lionking

Despite the forest worth of paper devoted to this matter, there has been absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing my Gillard. Zip. Nada.

I wonder what Freud would say?

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

There is no evidence of wrongdoing on Gillard's part.

That would depend on whose version of events you listen to. At the very least there are a number of discrepancies and answers are required to clear them up.

What we do know is that both sides of the political press are now running with it. There is a story there that might just bring down a PM.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

If Abbott is guilty of anything, if Swann is guilty of anything, if anyone is guilty of anything, they should step aside. First of all, find her guilty of something.

I wonder if that's how Woodward and Bernstein went about it?

[lionking]

Well, well, well the man at the centre of this disgusting hate campaign against Gillard says she did nothing wrong:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...124-2a0vp.html

Quote:

Julia Gillard's former boyfriend and one time Australian Workers Union boss Bruce Wilson has broken his silence on the 17-year-old union slush fund saga declaring the Prime Minister has "absolutely nothing to answer for" and "did no wrong".
"Let me make this absolutely clear; apart from the initial legal advice Julia Gillard provided on the AWU Workplace Reform Association fund, she had nothing to do with any of it," he told Fairfax Media.
"Julia Gillard had absolutely no knowledge of anything that went after and people can search and continue this hunt all they like but they will find nothing. Nothing."

I trust this will shut up Abbott, Bishop and certain posters in this thread.

As I said, there is and has never been any evidence of wrong doing. It would be nice if the Coalition got back to policies. Too much to hope for I believe.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

I wonder what Freud would say?



That would depend on whose version of events you listen to. At the very least there are a number of discrepancies and answers are required to clear them up.

What we do know is that both sides of the political press are now running with it. There is a story there that might just bring down a PM.



I wonder if that's how Woodward and Bernstein went about it?

Yes, it was, now that you mention it. They worked on that Watergate story extensively, till they had it the basic facts nailed down, then they published.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by lionking

Well, well, well the man at the centre of this disgusting hate campaign against Gillard says she did nothing wrong:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...124-2a0vp.html



I trust this will shut up Abbott, Bishop and certain posters in this thread.

As I said, there is and has never been any evidence of wrong doing. It would be nice if the Coalition got back to policies. Too much to hope for I believe.

About time he did the right thing by her. The media is more interested in the word of long time conman and sex predator like Blewitt. His own sister and ex-wife both hate him and say you can't trust a word he says.

As for policy, the Labor party this week released the proposed plan for the Murray-Darling, one of the most critical plans for the future of the South East of Australia. Hardly a word was said about it. What is this nation coming to when vital issues are relegated to second place behind guilt by association and hatred of non whites.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Yes, it was, now that you mention it. They worked on that Watergate story extensively, till they had it the basic facts nailed down, then they published.

Nope. Completely wrong. There were quite a number of articles published across a number of papers prior to a full understanding and Nixon's resignation.

[a_unique_person]

No, there were a number of articles published prior to a full understanding of Nixon's, part, but they published an article that detailed the republican break in to the Democrat hotel room when they had evidence, which took quite a lot of work to find and confirm. Quit moving the goal posts. They published when they had evidence. If they wanted to publish an article about corruption that happened in the AWU nearly 20 years ago, with Wilson and Blewitt as the main protagonists, then that is the story they have evidence for.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by lionking

Well, well, well the man at the centre of this disgusting hate campaign against Gillard says she did nothing wrong:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...124-2a0vp.html



I trust this will shut up Abbott, Bishop and certain posters in this thread.

As I said, there is and has never been any evidence of wrong doing. It would be nice if the Coalition got back to policies. Too much to hope for I believe.

The questions Gillard has to answer all appear to be questions she cannot answer, since she has no knowledge of that happened.

[a_unique_person]

Here is a link to the original Watergate Story as published in the Washington Post.

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibition...akin_scan.html

It's a scan, so no quotes. Not a mention of Nixon, not a word. Just the evidence, just the facts.

[Hallo Alfie]

So articles were published before he was found guilty.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

So articles were published before he was found guilty.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The article I linked to states the facts, Republicans organised for the Democrat rooms to be burgled. There is no mention of Nixon being involved. It is still not known if Nixon actually knew anything about it, as far as evidence goes. It is known he tried to cover it up. For that there is evidence, and it was that act for which he resigned.

[Hallo Alfie]

Whatever. Your original point was to 'first of all, find her guilty of something'.

This is wrong on two counts (and we will agree to disagree on the first): articles were published about the issue prior to full exposure. Second, only a judge or jury will find anyone guilty of anything.

At the moment she is charged with nothing but bad judgement - she has been accused of this before and this episode does nothing to enhance that reputation.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Whatever. Your original point was to 'first of all, find her guilty of something'.

Not in a court of law guilty, evidence that says she has done something illegal guilty. The Watergate article makes no reference to Nixon because there was no evidence, even though I bet you they were wondering exactly that, and were working on evidence to link him to it.

Quote:

This is wrong on two counts (and we will agree to disagree on the first): articles were published about the issue prior to full exposure. Second, only a judge or jury will find anyone guilty of anything.

At the moment she is charged with nothing but bad judgement - she has been accused of this before and this episode does nothing to enhance that reputation.

How many people have exhibited bad judgement in choice of girlfriend or boyfriend? How about Abbott's girlfriend that he abandoned because he thought he had got her pregnant. I bet she regrets that, too.

[Hallo Alfie]

Gillard has bad judgement accusations left and right. She has in integrity problem and concerns in many quarters about her honesty. This issue goes to the heart of same.

She was in a relationship with some self admitted crooks (one intimate).
She has shared the sheets with married men.
She breaks promises.
It appears has has misled her employer - they sacked her. Moreover an equity partner has categorically claimed she knew of the file and the conveyance. Who is lying here?

There is more to come and if she is found to have questions to answer she should answer them. If she has done the wrong thing she might have to resign.

If (as some suggest) they should just leave this issue alone, one would have to ask ''why?". Why should they leave it alone - they are more than entitled to dig and find the truth; that is what journalists do - it's their job.

Long may they dig. If we have a dishonest PM, then she should be exposed.

Ask yourself this, would you feel the same way if this was Abbott under scrutiny?

[Hallo Alfie]

Rumour: A move against Gillard is afoot.

http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com.au/

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Rumour: A move against Gillard is afoot.

http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com.au/

I could be wrong Alfie, but I think you accidentally just reposted something from two years ago. Could you just check?

[Hallo Alfie]

You're right!
You got it wrong.

[Hallo Alfie]

Hilarious!

Gillard defends herself against what she has called a "vile smear campaign" with - guess what? Vile smears.

Rather than actually answer questions she unloads on Ralph Blewitt. Curiously, this poor slob received zero financial benefit from the AWU scandal. She would rather we listen to her ex lover who bagged the lot (except some that might or might not have found its way into Gillard's bank account and/or home improvements).

This is not going away.

[lionking]

Another evidence free post. Gillard has done nothing wrong and the desperation of Abbott and Bishop is clear. It's costing the Coalition votes. Keep it up losers.

In addition, there is absolutely no evidence of money going to Gillard. Poisoning of the well noted.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by lionking

Another evidence free post. Gillard has done nothing wrong and the desperation of Abbott and Bishop is clear. It's costing the Coalition votes. Keep it up losers.

In addition, there is absolutely no evidence of money going to Gillard. Poisoning of the well noted.

“I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything!”

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

“I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything!”

Are you suggesting some other system? Guilt by association? Guilt by innuendo?

[wombatwal]

Heard on the news today that Bishop meet with Blewett to get some documents and evidence.
Allegedly according to her he had none.
No smoking gun.
Opposition and Gillard haters are increasingly looking desperate.
BUT
This is hurting Gillard and Labor.
What is Labor to do?

[lionking]

The Opposition is a laughing stock. All of Question Time devoted to questions about Gillard's alleged behaviour more than 20 years ago, all of which have been dealt with. Abbott is a coward, refusing to ask any questions at all. Bishop looks petty and irrelevant. A pathetic performance I hope they keep up. Unlike wal, I think this whole thing is not harming the Government or the PM at all.

[lionking]

The Poodle and now Bronwyn Bishop chiming in to challenge the Speaker, while Abbott remains mute. This is classic. The Opposition strategists are idiots.

[wombatwal]

Originally Posted by lionking

The Opposition is a laughing stock. All of Question Time devoted to questions about Gillard's alleged behaviour more than 20 years ago, all of which have been dealt with. Abbott is a coward, refusing to ask any questions at all. Bishop looks petty and irrelevant. A pathetic performance I hope they keep up. Unlike wal, I think this whole thing is not harming the Government or the PM at all.

I hope you are right.
But I know there are a lot of people out here in the Western Suburbs of Sydney have no time for Gillard and thinks she is a liar anyway. This can only hurt her here in the west.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by wombatwal

I hope you are right.
But I know there are a lot of people out here in the Western Suburbs of Sydney have no time for Gillard and thinks she is a liar anyway. This can only hurt her here in the west.

You might be right, and I know that that part of Australia has had dramatic demographic changes over recent years. They are not ideologically rusted on, but are extremely conscious of their hip pocket. By any measure Labor has managed the economy very well, and this will be weighed up next election.

[Hallo Alfie]

There's still plenty of puff in the AWU story and Gillard will have more lies to make up and questions to answer.

One wonders why she wouldn't repeat in parliament what she said at the press conference yesterday?

Very interesting.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by wombatwal

I hope you are right.
But I know there are a lot of people out here in the Western Suburbs of Sydney have no time for Gillard and thinks she is a liar anyway. This can only hurt her here in the west.

Yet the polls say Labor is within sight of a win. They hate boat people more than anything else, that's why the mantra at the top Abbott's list has been 'stop the boats'. The Labor now treats them like crap, just like the Libs did. No votes there any more. Then the carbon tax scare. That turns out to have been nothing like he was telling everyone it would be like. Gillard has a higher approval rating than Abbott, as does the carbon tax.

After all the time spent on this, a lot of people will be telling themselves this has no more legs to it than the carbon tax hysteria.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

After all the time spent on this, a lot of people will be telling themselves this has no more legs to it than the carbon tax hysteria.

Correct. Relying on a scumbag like Blewitt to discredit Gillard? Only right wing lunatics could possibly buy this.

[Hallo Alfie]

And in the same breath believe that Wilson's comments exonerate her. Only brainless left wing nut jobs could see a big difference between one crook and another crook.

One thing - Blewitt received zero financial gain. Wilson bagged the lot (minus any possible "commissions" to unnamed third parties).

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by lionking

Correct. Relying on a scumbag like Blewitt to discredit Gillard? Only right wing lunatics could possibly buy this.

As a fraud, denounced by his own family, what is he up to now? Some more fraud, of course. Free bed and breakfast, and a holiday back in the old country. All he has to do is tell some people what they want to hear. Picks up some cash for 'expenses' while he's at it.

[Hallo Alfie]

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt is it?

[Wildy]

So which shonky person are we supposed to believe Alfie? And why?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Wildy

So which shonky person are we supposed to believe Alfie? And why?

No idea. You tell me.

But why listen to only one and not the other? Why would Gillard smear one and not the other? (this kinda answers itself though now doesn't it). Why ask for one version to be believed and not the other?

None of them are covered in glory over this - the whole thing stinks and Gillard refuses to answer certain questions in parliament. One has to wonder why.