Peter Slipper as Speaker

[GuruJane]

Everyone else was given the presumption of innocence and given the opportunity to repay the money without penalty.

Just as Slippery himself has been in the past when he's paid back 27K or so without penality. OK? He hasn't been treated differently until now.

You just don't want to get it. Not only are these charges on a different level of seriousness because they involve deliberate and intentional deception personally executed by S
Slipper himself (not his staff) - but that Dept of Finace had given Slippery 3 prior warnings and instructions to use the electronic cab charge, not the manual to stop him making similar "mistakes" he had made in past.

The difference is that Slipper was dobbed in on this occasion arguably due to a political vendetta.

Nope. You're just making excuses for him, no doubt for your own political reasons.

 

[sherb]

So out of all those MPs, only Slipper is alleged to have acted deliberately.

All the rest made innocent mistakes.

Rightio then.......

 

[midorigreenwood]

So out of all those MPs, only Slipper is alleged to have acted deliberately.

All the rest made innocent mistakes.

Rightio then.......

yeah, clearly its mutually assured destruction. Labor and libs know that it'll be bad for both sides if police investigate every single mistake so they usually don't make a big fuss about it.

Margo Kingston is the only journo that has been arguing this angle for yonks and she gave an interesting example of the double standards.

http://www.independentaustralia.net...w-finance-defied-protocol-to-crucify-slipper/

Now, there is the Finance Department Protocol followed when an Allegation is Received of Alleged Misuse of Entitlement by a Member or Senator (the so-called Minchin Protocol, because the then Howard Government finance minister Nick Minchin decreed it) which says that when a politician claims too much for minor expenses (such as cab fares) then they just quietly repay the excess and all is forgiven.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...pay-900-cab-fare/story-e6frf7kx-1226027714351

A LIBERAL staffer who splurged $906 on a cab ride from Wodonga to Melbourne boasted on Facebook: "I don't do buses."
Adam Wyldeck, who works for Victorian Liberal MP Sophie Mirabella, provided taxi fare updates on Facebook as he travelled to the airport on Sunday.
"Not even in Melbourne yet and the cab fare is sitting at $756," he wrote.
After a Facebook friend asked whether he could have caught a bus, Mr Wyldeck replied: "I don't do buses."
He said he couldn't go by rail because "trains left way too early".

"It's just how I roll," he wrote.

Do normal people.....in fact a staffer who is probably not independently weathy spurge 900 bucks on a cab ride if they weren't going to claim it as an expense? If he hadn't been found out due to stupidity it could be a sign of wrongdoing.
yet no AFP investigation about Mirabella's office's entire history of claiming entitlements?

 

[GuruJane]

So out of all those MPs, only Slipper is alleged to have acted deliberately.

Probably, the chief reason he has been charged with "deliberately" and "intentionally" was because of those three prior warnings and instructions issued to him by the Depart. Then he went and did it again, on a winery jaunt.

All the rest made innocent mistakes.

Yes, in the same way Slipper was asked to pay back 27K and did so. Also Tony Burke, Abbott and others.
They were given benefit of the doubt. But in none of the cases did the mistakes involve the MP personally filling out cabcharges on a jaunt around wineries, but on staffers of the Member concerned wrongly or inadvertently claiming stuff.

 

[blackcat]

yeah, clearly its mutually assured destruction. Labor and libs know that it'll be bad for both sides if police investigate every single mistake so they usually don't make a big fuss about it.

Margo Kingston is the only journo that has been arguing this angle for yonks and she gave an interesting example of the double standards.

http://www.independentaustralia.net...w-finance-defied-protocol-to-crucify-slipper/




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...pay-900-cab-fare/story-e6frf7kx-1226027714351



Do normal people.....in fact a staffer who is probably not independently weathy spurge 900 bucks on a cab ride if they weren't going to claim it as an expense? If he hadn't been found out due to stupidity it could be a sign of wrongdoing.
yet no AFP investigation about Mirabella's office's entire history of claiming entitlements?

its just how he rolls? why am i thinking a cadillac, his own driver, gin and juice, the wheelbase lowered. now THAT is rolling.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Bring back Slippery Pete the former Member for Fisher!

 

[midorigreenwood]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/peter-slipper-wins-cabcharge-taxi-conviction-appeal/6262018

Former federal parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper has won his appeal against three dishonesty convictions.

In a hearing in the ACT Supreme Court, Justice John Burns threw out the convictions and ordered the penalty be set aside.

I guess he'll have to get in line behind hicks for that apology

 

[blackcat]

Slipper was f'ed over by both parties.

Hicks might have been, and as an individual, he has my sympathy, but not as David Hicks, he needed to make personal amends on his positions and belief. He may well have, and that is his business, and Hicks has the right in this country to hold those beliefs. But, it gets a little mealy mouthed if he rejects part of the western rights and standards of social interaction, then wants his rights upheld when he is transgressed. he should have had those rights upheld, and that was canberra and JWH but dont play with fire then cry wolf. torturing those metaphors now.

the idiots who still wish to use him as a political pawn, those socialist alliance types, they are just as bad as Bush Blair and JWH

 

[pazza]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/peter-slipper-wins-cabcharge-taxi-conviction-appeal/6262018



I guess he'll have to get in line behind hicks for that apology

Bring on the lawsuit and the end of Brough, Abbott, Ashby and Roy. Slipper is the clear winner.

 

[sherb]

Come back Slippery, all is forgiven.

We need a decent speaker.

 

[JP Sauce]

Bring back Slippery Pete the former Member for Fisher!

Come back Slippery, all is forgiven.

We need a decent speaker.

Slippery Pete

 

[Grin]

Slipper was f'ed over by both parties.

Hicks might have been, and as an individual, he has my sympathy, but not as David Hicks, he needed to make personal amends on his positions and belief. He may well have, and that is his business, and Hicks has the right in this country to hold those beliefs. But, it gets a little mealy mouthed if he rejects part of the western rights and standards of social interaction, then wants his rights upheld when he is transgressed. he should have had those rights upheld, and that was canberra and JWH but dont play with fire then cry wolf. torturing those metaphors now.

the idiots who still wish to use him as a political pawn, those socialist alliance types, they are just as bad as Bush Blair and JWH

So you don't think governments should have to adhere to their own laws and it is OK to torture people to extract concessions.
Riiight.
And you reckon David Hicks has rejected western rights and standards.

 

[blackcat]

So you don't think governments should have to adhere to their own laws and it is OK to torture people to extract concessions.
Riiight.
And you reckon David Hicks has rejected western rights and standards.

Hicks was f'ed over. Canberra waswrong to sellhim out to the Americans. The Brits did not do that for their guys. did you read my post?

 

[Grin]

did you read my post?

Perhaps I misinterpreted these parts:
"But, it gets a little mealy mouthed if he rejects part of the western rights and standards of social interaction, then wants his rights upheld when he is transgressed.....the idiots who still wish to use him as a political pawn, those socialist alliance types,"

 

[blackcat]

Perhaps I misinterpreted these parts:
"But, it gets a little mealy mouthed if he rejects part of the western rights and standards of social interaction, then wants his rights upheld when he is transgressed.....the idiots who still wish to use him as a political pawn, those socialist alliance types,"

and I stand by that. This is not some version of Abbott's Team Australia.

Even tho he rejected our cosmopolitan society for his Soldier of Fortune life, he still deserves those protections. I just make out, his hypocrisy to want protections even while rejecting the integrated society he left for his adventure. Just because you can shoot an AK47 and it is legal in the Kashmir border in PAkistan and do whatever you want in Wazuristan, does not make it right does it? Might be legal there. And the gov't here cannot make your activity illegal retroscpectively, because that is not how the law works, even tho Canberra effectively did indict him retrospectively by leaving him in Gitmo to pay for his noncrime crime, he was still not acting like a solid citizen. Even in Wazuristan. He still took up an AK47 and fired off rounds. He was lucky the jihadis never whisked him off to Chechnya.

 

[Contra Mundum]

et in line behind hicks for that ap

Bring on the lawsuit and the end of Brough, Abbott, Ashby and Roy. Slipper is the clear winner.

******* Brough who is in this up to his armpits has got off scott free. That conviction was never going to last.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Bring on the lawsuit and the end of Brough, Abbott, Ashby and Roy. Slipper is the clear winner.

He was always dodgy BUT he has been bankrupted by the legal costs , his reputation [such that it is] has been destroyed - not exactly "winning'

 

[raghav]

One thing about Slipper that is for sure and certain, he was a good speaker and the old senile hag that currently abuses the position could learn a lot from him as to how to do the job.

 

[blackcat]

One thing about Slipper that is for sure and certain, he was a good speaker and the old senile hag that currently abuses the position could learn a lot from him as to how to do the job.

he loved the ceremony.

he put the emperors robes into the emperors robes

 

[Slax]

I so want Slipper to go Ashby and Brough, they both deserve to pay massive personal compensation to Slipper for the lies and the best part will be watching the two pieces of scum drag the rest of the Liberal Party into their sesspool

 

[Lester Burnham]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/peter-slipper-wins-cabcharge-taxi-conviction-appeal/6262018

I guess he'll have to get in line behind hicks for that apology

All legit, nothing to see here.

In her ruling the Chief Magistrate found Mr Slipper had been disingenuous in claiming the travel to the wineries.

But today Justice John Burns found she should have taken a broader view.

"I accept that the evidence before the Magistrate was capable of raising, as a rational inference, the proposition that the appellant undertook each of the three journeys for purposes unrelated to parliamentary business," he said.

"She may have been entitled to conclude that it was the most probable inference."

"The crucial question is, was it the only rational inference available on the evidence?"

He found there were other potential explanations, including that Mr Slipper may have travelled to the wineries to inform himself about the industry, or that he was meeting a third party.

He said the prosecution had failed to exclude these possibilities.
​

How is it up to the prosecution to exclude these possibilities?

 

[raghav]

he loved the ceremony.

he put the emperors robes into the emperors robes

He did indeed and no member was in any doubt that he was in charge.

 

[Windhover]

All legit, nothing to see here.

In her ruling the Chief Magistrate found Mr Slipper had been disingenuous in claiming the travel to the wineries.

But today Justice John Burns found she should have taken a broader view.

"I accept that the evidence before the Magistrate was capable of raising, as a rational inference, the proposition that the appellant undertook each of the three journeys for purposes unrelated to parliamentary business," he said.

"She may have been entitled to conclude that it was the most probable inference."

"The crucial question is, was it the only rational inference available on the evidence?"

He found there were other potential explanations, including that Mr Slipper may have travelled to the wineries to inform himself about the industry, or that he was meeting a third party.

He said the prosecution had failed to exclude these possibilities.
​

How is it up to the prosecution to exclude these possibilities?

Under our version of the rule of law it is for the prosecution to prove every element of the case made against an accused beyond reasonable doubt. It follows that if there were legitimate potential explanations for the incurrence of the travel expenses (as the appeal judge found) then it cannot be proved BRD that Slipper wrongly charged the travel expenses to the CWth.

Sure, in the light of day we can all say that attending a private wedding (Tony Abbott) or attending a winery (Slipper) is not a proper use of travel allowance. But they have committed no crime by "mistakenly" thinking the expense was properly incurred. It would need to be proved BRD that they knew the expense was a rort.

The solution is to tighten the travel expense guidelines so that, for example, every claimed purpose for the expense must be stated in the travel expense claim. I can't see "let's ride a bike for charity and be paid out of the public purse all the way" Tony fixing the problem. Can you?

 

[Contra Mundum]

All legit, nothing to see here.

In her ruling the Chief Magistrate found Mr Slipper had been disingenuous in claiming the travel to the wineries.

But today Justice John Burns found she should have taken a broader view.

"I accept that the evidence before the Magistrate was capable of raising, as a rational inference, the proposition that the appellant undertook each of the three journeys for purposes unrelated to parliamentary business," he said.

"She may have been entitled to conclude that it was the most probable inference."

"The crucial question is, was it the only rational inference available on the evidence?"

He found there were other potential explanations, including that Mr Slipper may have travelled to the wineries to inform himself about the industry, or that he was meeting a third party.

He said the prosecution had failed to exclude these possibilities.
​

How is it up to the prosecution to exclude these possibilities?

the test is BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

 

[Gough]

Slipper's guilty under the PM's catch all of being up to no good.