Gillard's AWU/Wilson past about to haunt her?

[Dry Rot]

Tell me man, what are the Victorian cops going to find?

Dunno what Blewitt told them. Let's wait and see.

 

[noddy]

Dunno what Blewitt told them. Let's wait and see.

Blewitt better have the Pope as a reference then DR if you are banking on him alone.

 

[Caesar]

Caesar Isn't it about time this thread was shut? Even Mike Smith seems to have given up on it.

We don't like to lock discussions just because they've run their course.

I'm sure the thread will die naturally as the issue is dropped by the media, as is the case with every thread.

 

[Old Spice]

Luckily normal people don't really care about the intrigues and fetishes of oddities and have moved on.

And so it proves:

GhostWhoVotes‏@GhostWhoVotes
#Nielsen Poll Abbott's handling of AWU affair: Approve 24 Disapprove 64 #auspol

 

[Windhover]

Dunno what Blewitt told them. Let's wait and see.

You care what Blewitt says? Really? No, really???

Maybe Blewitt will actually say something that, ahem, if believed, could justify anyone ever paying any attention to this 20 year old story about nothing. Just do not expect Constable Plod (or anyone other than Harry Nowicki) touching Blewitt with a barge pole.

 

[harmesy 37]

And so it proves:

GhostWhoVotes‏@GhostWhoVotes
#Nielsen Poll Abbott's handling of AWU affair: Approve 24 Disapprove 64 #auspol

The funny thing is that Abbott had very little to do with the questions related to the AWU Affair, so I guess he is going to be hated by the Liberal Hate Media (SMH, The Age, The ABC etc) no matter what he does. Either he is too aggressive or not aggressive enough, or failed to supply the "smoking gun" or whatever else it is that the media demand of him.


What I would like to see is:

1) Robert McClelland come forward and give his account of what he knows.

"The lawyer was Robert McClelland who would go on to become Attorney-General appointed by Kevin Rudd and who would be sacked earlier this year by Julia Gillard because of his public support for the resurrection of Kevin Rudd as prime minister. (In other word- McClelland knew about Gillard's corrupt past links and was not willing to support a corrupt leader). McClelland not only was one of the lawyers acting on behalf of the AWU in advising what they should do to recover the funds however he became so immersed in remedying these wrongs that he did his Master thesis on the whole debacle".

I wonder if he has ever seen the movies - Mr Smith Goes to Washington or On the Waterfront. Both deal with the sacrifices good people have to make to fight corruption. I wonder who will stand up to it. Next year will be interesting because the present govt is no doubt about it rotten to the core. Whether their spinmeister McTernan can hide it is the real question.


2) More information on the Town Mode Fashion payments. Gillard received at least $17,000 from Town Mode Fashion in "clothes". It was fortunate that this company actually did renovations on homes. Either Gillard was amazingly fashion conscious in the 1990s or she needed renovations done on her Abbotsford home. I wonder which one it is?

 

[hoianbulldog]

You are essentially saying the swinging voter's choice at the next election will be based on hearsay and smear. Nice. And pretty cynical!

No I'm not. But if you don't think the shit that has been thrown at the union movement in the last few years isn't going to cause voter backlash they you aren't being serious.

Thompson screwed union members for money so he could screw hookers........Everyone knows that regardless of what has been proven. Even you know that. (And also so his ethical wife could fly Bus Class around the country)

The AWU wouldn't be such a biggie on it's own, but on the back of CT it all adds up to those who aren't rusted on.

 

[harmesy 37]

Tricky dicky was stuffer for things he did/controlled while in power not 20 years ago.

The Clintons kept bad company and did some legal work - thats the corrolation

The correlation with whitewater is a fabrication propulgated by someone from The Age and then run with by people from the public who only go to The Age for their source of information.

This situation is similar to watergate because of the lying, the cover-up, the disrespect for the free media. You may see it closer to whitewater if you like, but that is on your conscience if you decide to go down that path.

re watergate
A few days later, Nixon's Press Secretary, described the event as "a third rate burglary attempt". On August 29 at a news conference, President Nixon stated Dean had conducted a thorough investigation of the matter, when in fact Dean had not conducted any investigation at all. Nixon also said, "I can say categorically that... no one in the White House staff, no one in this Administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident."

Gillard was apparently "young and naive", her exit interview confirmed she knew the fund was "a slush fund" but when she set up the association for Wilson it was for "worplace reform and safety".
Then just recently...“Ms Gillard, have you, or your office, been in contact with Bruce Wilson?”
“Not that I’m aware of”, was Gillard’s reply.
Gillard didn't have a file on the AWU Slush fund that anyone else at Slater and Gordon had access to...but in her exit interview information was uncovered, and Nicola Roxon did end up having Gillard's "unofficial" personal file ...which has presumably since been destroyed.
"I don't want to cover for anybody." said Gillard's greek builder- oh really?


Gillard called Hartigan (the boss of News Limited at the time) and tried to stop the free press- demanding that News Limited never refer to the AWU Scandal again back in 2011 after Smith's report.

There are a lot of similarities between Gillard and Nixon- both wanted to stop the free press, both had a propensity for lying, both tried to cover/hide corruption.

 

[Old Spice]

The funny thing is that Abbott had very little to do with the questions related to the AWU Affair, so I guess he is going to be hated by the Liberal Hate Media (SMH, The Age, The ABC etc) no matter what he does. Either he is too aggressive or not aggressive enough, or failed to supply the "smoking gun" or whatever else it is that the media demand of him.


What I would like to see is:

1) Robert McClelland come forward and give his account of what he knows.

"The lawyer was Robert McClelland who would go on to become Attorney-General appointed by Kevin Rudd and who would be sacked earlier this year by Julia Gillard because of his public support for the resurrection of Kevin Rudd as prime minister. (In other word- McClelland knew about Gillard's corrupt past links and was not willing to support a corrupt leader). McClelland not only was one of the lawyers acting on behalf of the AWU in advising what they should do to recover the funds however he became so immersed in remedying these wrongs that he did his Master thesis on the whole debacle".

I wonder if he has ever seen the movies - Mr Smith Goes to Washington or On the Waterfront. Both deal with the sacrifices good people have to make to fight corruption. I wonder who will stand up to it. Next year will be interesting because the present govt is no doubt about it rotten to the core. Whether their spinmeister McTernan can hide it is the real question.


2) More information on the Town Mode Fashion payments. Gillard received at least $17,000 from Town Mode Fashion in "clothes". It was fortunate that this company actually did renovations on homes. Either Gillard was amazingly fashion conscious in the 1990s or she needed renovations done on her Abbotsford home. I wonder which one it is?

You might ask yourself why none of this muck-raking works. It's because everyone knows who is running the main game and they always weigh that up.

 

[medusala]

You might ask yourself why none of this muck-raking works.

Union corruption is a given. It surprises noone. Nor does the fact the ALP will nearly always turn a blind eye.

It's up there with "new trouble in Gaza Strip" as a headline which is repetitive and boring.

Still amusing to see fanbois gloss over corruption, many of the same people who frothed at the mouth over a $50 phone card. Hypocrisy 101 seems to be a prerequisite for a B.fb

 

[Old Spice]

Union corruption is a given. It surprises noone. Nor does the fact the ALP will nearly always turn a blind eye.

It's up there with "new trouble in Gaza Strip" as a headline which is repetitive and boring.

Still amusing to see fanbois gloss over corruption, many of the same people who frothed at the mouth over a $50 phone card. Hypocrisy 101 seems to be a prerequisite for a B.fb

Wierdos believe union corruption is rife, usually people who don't work for a living. For them it's a very alien world.

On the other hand, everyone believes corporations are squeaky clean and wealth distribution is fair..

How is life in the world of abstraction?

 

[medusala]

Wierdos believe union corruption is rife, usually people who don't work for a living.

Public servants?

 

[Old Spice]

Public servants?

Is that an admission? Never did learn what you did for a living.

 

[medusala]

Is that an admission? Never did learn what you did for a living.

I was very briefly. Now ex investment banker doing various bits and pieces.

 

[Old Spice]

I was very briefly. Now ex investment banker doing various bits and pieces.

An investment banker, and yet your political views are mercenary. That's quite unbelievable.

While we're admitting occupations, I was in debt recovery for a decade. Prior to that I was working as a wide belt sander, tenenor etc in a furniture factory.

Marx was right: social being does determine social consciousness.

 

[harmesy 37]

You might ask yourself why none of this muck-raking works. It's because everyone knows who is running the main game and they always weigh that up.

"Muck raking"? You forgot to use the words as instructed by your demi-god McTernan "sleaze and slime". You got one thing right - you referred to who is running the main game- and that is Gillard's PR consultant from the UK - McTernan....sorry, his title is "senior communication strategist" or in other words- moral vacuum.

I am sure you are one of those people who believe everything as instructed by McTernan or otherwise from The Age. Gillard and Abbott aren't running the show - it is McTernan.

A photo of your hero - comrade McTernan.

Ever read Animal Farm? You should do yourself a favour.

 

[Brown Bottle]

(In other word- McClelland knew about Gillard's corrupt past links and was not willing to support a corrupt leader).

Hi. I love reading your posts. It's like the work of an amateur sleuth gone mad. You remind me of Mel Gibson in that horrible movie he made with Julia Roberts - Conspiracy Theory.

 

[Norfolk Nadia]

You do realise that there actually was a conspiracy in that movie ...

 

[Todman]

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/

Terry O'Connor QC is a former head of Western Australia's Anti-Corruption Commission.


Section 7(b) of the Criminal Code provides that where an offence has been committed, a person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit an offence, is also guilty of the same offence and is liable to the same punishment as if he or she had committed the offence. A lawyer who advises a client to do something that would constitute an offence would be caught by this provision.
Gillard advised Blewitt on the incorporation of the association and prepared the rules of the association and, following a query from the commissioner, wrote arguing for the incorporation of the association.
The letter has not been disclosed so it is impossible to draw any conclusions about it. Gillard has maintained that she did nothing wrong but has not explained why she says that.

However, without some explanation from her as to what occurred, there is, in my opinion, a prima facie case that she could have been charged along with Blewitt as she drafted the rules of the association for Blewitt knowing that the rules did not disclose the purpose for which the association was being incorporated.

How then to view Julia Gillard's competence, ethics and judgement when she still says, "I did nothing wrong". Money was stolen and the Prime Minister has relevant information that would help authorities to clear up the matter. But rather than assist authorities, she vilifies and excoriates anyone who does try to help.

 

[noddy]

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/



How then to view Julia Gillard's competence, ethics and judgement when she still says, "I did nothing wrong". Money was stolen and the Prime Minister has relevant information that would help authorities to clear up the matter. But rather than assist authorities, she vilifies and excoriates anyone who does try to help.

I take it the above are the words of Smith.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

 

[Brown Bottle]

You do realise that there actually was a conspiracy in that movie ...

Even a broken clock is right twice each day.

 

[Windhover]

Good boy Toddy, you actually go to the trouble of naming a criminal offence so that we can actually consider whether there might be any evidence our Prime Minister might have, 20 years ago, committed a crime to justify this ridiculous thread.

So this is what, apparently, s.7(b) of the Criminal Code says:-

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/

Terry O'Connor QC is a former head of Western Australia's Anti-Corruption Commission.

Section 7(b) of the Criminal Code provides that where an offence has been committed, a person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit an offence, is also guilty of the same offence and is liable to the same punishment as if he or she had committed the offence.

Now I have highlighted the "doing" words of the section that constitute the criminal misconduct so you can follow it. Have a good look. To be guilty of the offence the person must do (or omit to do) the enabling or aiding acts for the purpose of enabling the other person to commit a criminal offence.

Let's assume that Wilson (or Blewitt) committed a relevant criminal offence (neither has never been charged with anything, but they have been convicted and sentenced to pillory in the only court that matters, namely "public opinion, so it is a really safe assumption).

Let's also assume that the commission by Wilson (or Blewitt) of his criminal offence was aided and abetted by the setting up of the Association (I admit to being pretty uncertain about this assumption since we haven't even got a specific "criminal offence" in mind to know how or why it was aided and abetted, but since we are well into fantasy land I will play along).

Now, to prove our Prime Minister was in breach of s.7(b) we need to find evidence to show she had the purpose of aiding or abetting Wilson (or Blewitt) in committing his unknown criminal offence(s) by doing setting up the association. But for our Prime Minister to have that purpose obviously she would have needed to know that Wilson and/or Blewitt was intending to commit his unknown criminal offences at the time she assisted in setting up the Association.

And what evidence do we have that our Prime Minister had this knowledge 20 years ago? Well, precisely doodley-squat. This bit of inventiveness by former constable Plod Smith that you quote gets us nowhere:

Gillard advised Blewitt on the incorporation of the association and prepared the rules of the association and, following a query from the commissioner, wrote arguing for the incorporation of the association.
The letter has not been disclosed so it is impossible to draw any conclusions about it.

So whoopy-de-de-do we have a "missing letter". Big hairy deal. I think we can all assume that the letter contained submissions prepared by our Prime MInister that were designed to convince the commissioner on legal grounds that the association should be incorporated.

So how do you get from that earth-shattering assumption to "evidence that our Prime Minister knew at the time that the Association was to be used in furtherance of some unknown and unstated criminal offence"? Very simply, you don't.

But I did like this quote from former constable plod Smith:-

Gillard has maintained that she did nothing wrong but has not explained why she says that.

Um, constable plod, um, do you think, maybe, just maybe, the reason why she maintains she has done nothing wrong is because she hasn't? I mean, like, if that were just maybe true then what possible explanation could she give?

But our tireless Plod is too good for me. He goes on:-

However, without some explanation from her as to what occurred, there is, in my opinion, a prima facie case that she could have been charged along with Blewitt as she drafted the rules of the association for Blewitt knowing that the rules did not disclose the purpose for which the association was being incorporated.

I have highlighted the "doing words" that seek to pick up the s.7(b) offence that started Plod's "analysis". But remember, s.7(b) concerns "aiding or enabling" the commission of a criminal offence. So it seems Plod sees "the relevant criminal offence" that our Prime Minister, as a lwayer 20 years ago, is alleged to have aided or enabled is the incorporation of the association. (This is what he alleges as to "knowledge").

But constable Plod, assisting in the incorporation of an association whose rules did not disclose the purpose for which it was being incorporated was not then, is not now and never will be "a criminal offence". So there was no criminal offence to aid or enable.

Furthermore Gillard has made it clear that the promotion of health and safety of workers (which the Rules of the Association apparently stated as its purpose) was intended to be effected by the advancement within the AWU of those noble working class heroes Wilson and Blewitt. With the benefit of hindsight it seems that Wilson and Blewitt do not wear well the accolade of working class heroes.

But we can all be wise after the event - perhaps excluding you Todman, who seem determined to maintain you stupidity irregardless. For how else does one explain this absurdity . . . .

How then to view Julia Gillard's competence, ethics and judgement when she still says, "I did nothing wrong".

Well, to answer your admittedly rhetorical question, "Take her at her word and praise her competence, ethics and judgment". After all, you have nothing, as this senseless rant reveals . . .

Money was stolen . ..

Really? How much was stolen, from whom and do you have any clue as to who stole it?

. . . and the Prime Minister has relevant information that would help authorities to clear up the matter.

Well how bout dat. Mind telling us how you know the PM has relevant information, what that information is, and how it would help which authorities clear up what precise matter (pwease, no more fantasy) that seems to be twoubling you?

And this to end it, priceless . . .

But rather than assist authorities, she vilifies and excoriates anyone who does try to help.

Are we to assume you are referring to poor Julie B, Tony A or your hero, the former constable Plod? Perhaps, given how little has been proven by so many those you are claiming are "trying to help" should be vilified and excoriated for the appalling job they have done.

I do understand that you would regard it as inconceivable that our PM might be entirely innocent of any wrong-doing and therefore regard those seeking to impugn her conduct 20 years ago as slime. But, just to let you know where the real world is, should you ever recover your senses, our PM appears to be entirely innocent of any wrong-doing, so much so that she will not even be charged with any criminal offence. And if that is the case then those, like you, who make your fantastical allegations based on ludicrous assumptions, will correctly be identified as slime, whatever the provenance of your original scientific classification.

 

[Todman]

As I've said before. "It's the cover-up"

 

[Brown Bottle]

As I've said before. "It's the cover-up"

You're referring to the Abbott / One Nation thing? Or the Ashby / Brough / Slipper thing?

Either way, I couldn't agree more.