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

[tandino]

What I find fascinating about this whole sorry affair is that it seems to be those in the broader labour movement who are firing the shots and fanning the flames on this one.

How toxic must it be in that little sphere of influence?

 

[medusala]

Julia cooperated fully with the investigation and satisfied her partners completely. We know she resigned of her own choosing to pursue what, on any measure, would be regarded as a successful political career.

We do?

"successful political career"

Dippers would be proud.

 

[Contra Mundum]

We do?

"successful political career"

Dippers would be proud.

When did Peter Gordon get into bed with Izzie Leibler! I suppose Pete can bring a class action proceeding for the Palestinian people displaced by the West Bank settlements Izzie is building

 

[medusala]

When did Peter Gordon get into bed with Izzie Leibler! I suppose Pete can bring a class action proceeding for the Palestinian people displaced by the West Bank settlements Izzie is building

Comrade, what's your mail (and I am betting you actually know)? Resigned or quietly moved on?

I see plenty of regulatory news releases saying "x has resigned and the board thanks them for their service." Quite often means they were fired. I doubt Slaters would want the publicity re firing a partner.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

​

Abbott, News LTD, and some poster called Dry Rot are fast losing material. The Carbon Tax has proven to be far from armageddon, the asylum seeker issue appears to have been neutralised, and neither the Thomson nor Slipper spectacles brought down the government. The economy remains the envy of the world, and unemployment remains low. Policy continues to be implemented and passed. The polls are starting to even out.

So what to do for the self respecting commentators (or nobody posters and bloggers) hell bent on harming the Gillard led government? Ah, I know, let's fling some old muck and see if that sticks! Despite the fact her then law firm cleared her of any wrongdoing 17 years ago. After all, who cares about truth and facts when we have innuendo? Innuendo is Abbott's way. Keep scrapping the barrel, conservative fanboys.

 

[Dry Rot]

​

Abbott, News LTD, and some poster called Dry Rot are fast losing material. The Carbon Tax has proven to be far from armageddon, the asylum seeker issue appears to have been neutralised, and neither the Thomson nor Slipper spectacles brought down the government. The economy remains the envy of the world, and unemployment remains low. Policy continues to be implemented and passed. The polls are starting to even out.

So what to do for the self respecting commentators (or nobody posters and bloggers) hell bent on harming the Gillard led government? Ah, I know, let's fling some old muck and see if that sticks! Despite the fact her then law firm cleared her of any wrongdoing 17 years ago. After all, who cares about truth and facts when we have innuendo? Innuendo is Abbott's way. Keep scrapping the barrel, conservative fanboys.

You sound like Gillard on this topic.

And likewise avoiding the curly questions raised by a couple of ex partners and in this thread.

You've also forgotten that the whole issue was resurrected recently by Robert McClelland.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

You sound like Gillard on this topic.

And likewise avoiding the curly questions raised by a couple of ex partners and in this thread.

You've also forgotten that the whole issue was resurrected recently by Robert McClelland.

She has nothing to answer to. This is a non-issue, re-hashed by News Ltd and the Coalition who sense that their 'big issues' have been swept away from them (CarbonTax and Asylum Seekers), and who are grasping now at whatever will work - even a 17 year old issue that was put to bed legally 17 years ago and politically 5 years ago. I'm sure sad sacks like you will get some mileage out of it, but it is far from a game changer. No one gives a s**t about it, nor should they.

 

[GuruJane]

She has nothing to answer to. This is a non-issue, re-hashed by News Ltd and the Coalition who sense that their 'big issues' have been swept away from them (CarbonTax and Asylum Seekers), and who are grasping now at whatever will work - even a 17 year old issue that was put to bed legally 17 years ago and politically 5 years ago. I'm sure sad sacks like you will get some mileage out of it, but it is far from a game changer. No one gives a s**t about it, nor should they.

The real prob is that its just one issue after another, after another, after another. I think she'll tough this one out, but then more coming in the pipeline, like the asylum seekers, every day in every way. And there might be a rude shock involving Slipper in October.

 

[noddy]

What I find fascinating about this whole sorry affair is that it seems to be those in the broader labour movement who are firing the shots and fanning the flames on this one.

How toxic must it be in that little sphere of influence?

The Rudd camp definitely but could you put names to those in the broader labor movement who are firing the shots and fanning the flames on this one?

 

[noddy]

The real prob is that its just one issue after another, after another, after another. I think she'll tough this one out, but then more coming in the pipeline, like the asylum seekers, every day in every way. And there might be a rude shock involving Slipper in October.

As much as i enjoyed seeing Kelly puffing his cheeks out in disbelief i was also thinking "Julia you will cop much more than both barrels in retaliation from News Ltd for this slap in the face episode"

 

[Windhover]

Thanks, I agree it is a beauty. If she billed the AWU for that work, she has questions to answer.

Unless the S & G investigation was a whitewash (and you, awaiting in puddles of your own urine "the leaked transcript" seem to be the last person to suggest it was anything other than thorough) surely Julia has already fully answered those questions - to the appropriate body. Once the remaining partners at S & G were satisfied (and they were) that is the end of it.

Your excitement over these "questions to answer", of no currency (relating to events 17 plus years ago) is dog-like in its direction and intelligence. Do keep drooling DR, nothing wrong with that, but try spraying away from the computer screen - and keep up your toilet training.[/quote]

 

[Footy Smarts]

When even Abbott's letting this one pass to the keeper you know there's nothing in it. How many times does S&G have to come out saying she did nothing wrong and has nothing to answer before The Australian finally drops it?

 

[Dry Rot]

When even Abbott's letting this one pass to the keeper you know there's nothing in it. How many times does S&G have to come out saying she did nothing wrong and has nothing to answer before The Australian finally drops it?

Why are the Fairfax papers running with it, claiming that Gillard has questions to answer?

 

[ralphmalph]

There's a transcript on the Australian's website

 

[JoondalupJ]

You are untterly clueless.

Thomson blew both his feet off suing Fairfax.

Thomson was totally about getting rid of the Gillard minority government, nothing more ,nothing less. It wasn,t about punishing alleged wrong doing by a former union official , it was about getting rid of the Gillard minority government. AND getting good old tone capone into the lodge. Nothing else. Its pretty simple , these people are politicians they are not decent humans.
Reality check.

 

[tazzietiger]

1. It wasn't billed at all - very dodgy and arguably a fraud on S&G doing secret work and not billing for it

It wasn't billed.

JULIA Gillard admitted to law firm Slater & Gordon during an internal probe that she should have opened a file for the controversial legal work that she had done for her then client and boyfriend, union boss Bruce Wilson.
A transcript from a tape-recorded interview with the firm's senior partner at the time, Peter Gordon, on September 11, 1995, shows that Ms Gillard, an industrial lawyer, said she had not billed Mr Wilson or the Australian Workers Union for her work on a legal entity for him

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...have-opened-file/story-fn59niix-1226455335579

 

[noddy]

When even Abbott's letting this one pass to the keeper you know there's nothing in it. How many times does S&G have to come out saying she did nothing wrong and has nothing to answer before The Australian finally drops it?

oops, how could i mistake FS for DR

 

[JoondalupJ]

Thanks, I agree it is a beauty. If she billed the AWU for that work, she has questions to answer.



Ha Ha Ha! Not what Peter Gordon says



Mates with those two? Ha Ha Ha! Murphy was the other one and under investigation, and Gordon hardly speaks to her



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...fit-of-the-doubt/story-fn59niix-1226454518031

Well done Windover!

Gee there must be something else to talk about . This "I said that" and "someone said this" and "this person doesn,t say the same thing". Fair dinkum, this is now getting just stupid . Next we,ll be bringing up something Bob Menzies did 60 years ago that could jeopardise Tony "onevote,s chances . We are a gossipy
little bunch hey? Trouble is we,re all trying to outgossip each other with pretend "I know what happened from the inside" , bullshit. But play time is fun. But back to class now.

 

[JoondalupJ]

shh, ok i admit i'm turned on by women in power.

Always had a crush on Maggie Thatcher.

Hey maaate leave Maggie out of this , she was my sheila,
before she was sacked , then , well I moved on. Julia is quite powerful mmmm..........

 

[ralphmalph]

So how does that amount to a 'fraud on S&G'?

 

[JoondalupJ]

The real prob is that its just one issue after another, after another, after another. I think she'll tough this one out, but then more coming in the pipeline, like the asylum seekers, every day in every way. And there might be a rude shock involving Slipper in October.

Never say there might be a rude shock in October. What might it be ?

 

[noddy]

It wasn't billed.

I tell you what if that's all you have got to put up after 17 years of muck raking then well done i'm sure secret squirrel would be in raptures.

Have sort of leaned away away from Julia these last 18 months & believed she had given Abbott too many free kicks but this episode has brought me back into the fold, have never seen such a character assassination attempt of any political leader let alone a current Prime Minister of this country in my life.

Was listening to a local talk back show not long ago this morning & already the nutters out there ably led by the shock jocks are frothing at the mouth & baying for blood.

 

[noddy]

Why are the Fairfax papers running with it, claiming that Gillard has questions to answer?

Note the word "again"

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...nds-behind-gillard--again-20120821-24kqs.html

Now what are these questions/allegations you believe Julia Gillard should answer to?

 

[Footy Smarts]

Why are the Fairfax papers running with it, claiming that Gillard has questions to answer?

Because they're in the business of selling stories. Scandal sells. At least they have the decency that the main article they've got on it on their website is about S&G backing up the PM yet again.

Compare that to The Australian where there are 8 articles under their "exclusive" heading on this issue. Going by the headlines not one of them mentions the important fact that S&G who ran the investigation have repeatedly defended the PM (I don't have access past the pay-wall. Plenty of free trash written on the internet without wanting to pay for more).

They're running this like it's a scandal like the Craig Thomson stuff. I mean at worst she can currently be accused of having a bad taste in men and been let down by her former boyfriend. She's already admitted to that! What else do they want her to say? The way The Australian are running with this it's like no lawyer has ever done work off-file for a friend or family member. You'd also think that S&G saying she did nothing wrong is irrelevant despite her being employed by them at the time.

 

[Footy Smarts]

The Australian's editorial today shows exactly what a non-story this is and how ridiculous their chasing of it is. Apart from defending their chasing of the non-story this is the key paragraph:

There are clear matters of public interest at stake, such as the Prime Minister's character, and how this saga impacts on her efforts to tackle union corruption. So it is surprising some journalists dismiss the issue as blogosphere scuttlebutt over an old story. Dennis Atkins in The Courier-Mail says: "What is missing is any specific allegation and exact questions Gillard should answer." The ABC's Barrie Cassidy says "allegations were not put" to Ms Gillard. Mr Latham said our reporting has "not taken the story any further". The editor of The Monthly accused this newspaper of a "creative interpretation" of evidence. These journalists may claim there are no new allegations that warrant a response but this is not the view of the former Slater & Gordon partners or senior ALP and AWU officials. Mr Styant-Browne says the matter is of "genuine public interest". In 1996, then AWU national secretary Ian Cambridge called for a judicial inquiry as he feared "serious corruption" had taken place. Former attorney-general Robert McClelland, then a solicitor engaged by the AWU to recover the misappropriated funds, told parliament in June that questions remained unanswered and action needed to be taken to ensure this kind of corruption was not repeated. Mr Styant-Browne said he did not "contemplate" that Slater & Gordon would " spin the facts of (Ms Gillard's) departure" in order "to protect" her.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-explain-moment/story-e6frg71x-1226455245313

So they name a number of commentators who have argued that there haven't been any allegations or that there is nothing new in the story. The Australian's entire claim is that there are new things that have to be addressed by the PM.

So what are these new claims? Well who knows they don't mention what they are.

They mention a 17 year old allegation that "serious corruption" took place. That's both not new and also nothing to do with the PM's actions since even The Australian agree that she wasn't involved with that. Then they mention McClelland talking about corruption which again has nothing to do with the PM. Then they mention Styant-Browne's claims that S&G have protected her and spun the facts despite the fact that current and former S&G partners have said she did nothing wrong.

So to all those chasing this story, what are the new allegations that haven't been dealt with and what are the new questions that haven't been answered?