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 . . .
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.