ROSTRUM: SHOCKED AND OUTRAGED EDITION!
Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, says Australians have a right to be “shocked” and “outraged” over chilling footage of radicalised children that flashed across the screens of the ordinarily restrained Channel Seven nightly news program.
In fact the so-called “Muslim youth group” is now under investigation following the discovery of the disturbing video.
DISGUSTING AND SICKENING!
In this disgusting and sickening video, children as young as six years old can be seen calling for an end to Australian democracy as well as inciting violent action against non-Muslims and to reject Australia and its values.
Speaking to The Gutter Trash on Friday, Ms Julie Bishop condemned the footage calling it “preaching of hatred.”
“It’s an ideology that preaches hatred against the country in which they live,” Ms Bishop said.
She also said that the Federal Government will work to push through new terror legislation as early as today.
“Until that passing through the parliament.. we don’t have an offence for the promotion of terrorism,” the Foreign Minister said.
BRAINWASHING!
A terror risk expert says it’s “brainwashing,” and aimed at creating “violent extremists.”
“These are disturbing and shocking images and they do raise concerns about the welfare of the four young boys who are identified in the video,” Family and Community Services Minister Gabrielle Upton said.
A group calling itself The Muslim Youth Project runs regular events for young children.
In the video of the event held on September 21 in 2013 in Lakemba, young boys rally under the banner “Soldiers of Khilafa” with a six-year-old proclaiming:
“You’re never too young to be a Soldier for Khilafa.”
The children promise to die fighting to end democracy in Australia, replacing it with Islamic Sharia law.
They also call for American President Barack Obama to ‘go to hell’, for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to be beheaded and for an end to Western ideals.
UGLY AND SICKENING!
“I think it’s ugly, I think it’s sickening, and I think it’s absolutely disturbing,” Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said.
“It’s one thing for these peddlers of vicious hate to do that themselves, which is appalling enough, but to recruit children into such a sickening display I think appals all Australians of all religions, rightly.”
The man leading the chant is Bilal Merhi, a senior figure in the radical group Hizb ut Tahrir.
He was recently in Indonesia delivering a sermon to 200,000 people.
“Yes my brothers, we will change the world to suit Islam… The Muslims living in Australia are also engaging in this struggle,” he said in a video of the sermon.
After the 2012 riot in the streets of Sydney, Merhi lead the call for Muslims to hit back with force, saying: “Those who mock you, ridicule, insult you, they will not hear our response, they will see out response.”
IT’S A DEATH CULT!
Immigration Minister Scott Morrison called the group a “cult,” no doubt calling on his own experience as a member of the Hillsong Church.
“This is a cult which exists in a very small section of Australian society and it’s a cult that we need to weed out,” he said.
RATS!
“Hizb ut Tahrir is not part of the solution in this country in terms of countering violent extremism… They’re rats that are crawling under their rocks as the spotlight comes onto them, but we need to get this poison out of the system” he said
The Gutter Trash approached Bilal Merhi, Abu Zakariya, Abdul Rahman El Mir, The Muslim Youth Project and Hizb ut Tahrir but they have all failed to respond to requests for comment.
The Muslim Youth Project is planning another event this weekend.
theguttertrash.com 
Oh FFS – there wasn’t a severed head in sight! People are so overprotective these days. What’s next – an FGM class with plastic Barbie dolls???
I’m terrified!
People exploiting their children & loading them with their own rubbish prejudices!
Unprecedented!
What next……….?
Exploding nappies ??????????????????
The Muslim Youth Project is planning another event this weekend.
Shouldn’t have said that, Kneel, will be all over it with the Young Liberals …
Speaking to The Gutter Trash on Friday, Ms Julie Bishop condemned the footage calling it “preaching of hatred.”
“It’s an ideology that preaches hatred against the country in which they live,” Ms Bishop said.
Well if anyone knows about that last sentence its anyone in the current cabinet …
The Royal Commission –
Some aspects of her professional conduct as a solicitor appear questionable.
“Had she adopted a more rigorous approach to the task, it might have been more difficult for Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt to have behaved as they did”.
He concludes: “The evidence supports a finding that Ms Gillard was the beneficiary or recipient of certain funds from Mr Wilson.”
Seems about right.
…and this is a reasonable view –
IT is wholly unacceptable in 2014 that honest, hardworking Australians should be confronted at their workplaces by the intimidation common in the building and construction industry. A troubled working environment marred by coercion, intimidation, illegal strikes, work bans and threats against individuals and their businesses is further impaired by criminal activity and corruption.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/union-intransigence-destroying-jobs/story-e6frg6zo-1227107666989?nk=ffd071da1db13156f75adfe94c5ff901
explosive falafel
”””””””Julie Bishop, says Australians have a right to be “shocked” and “outraged” over chilling footage of radicalised children that flashed across the screens of the ordinarily restrained Channel Seven nightly news program.””””””’
So Joolees not a fan of Dill-Song either, huh.
”””””””’sickening video, children as young as six years old can be seen calling for an end to Australian democracy”””””””’#giggle
Sill them. Chasing smoke and mirrors trying to `end` mythical australian democracy. Ha-Ha-Ha
#Doh – SILLY them.
BREAKING NEWS: Julia Gillard didn’t commit any crime in relation to setting up of AWU slush fund, inquiry’s counsel assisting says.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/31/julia-gillard-did-not-commit-any-inquirys-counsel-assisting-says?CMP=soc_567
Good for her.
“But she was aware of facts, had she turned her mind to them, which would have indicated that the source of the wads of bank notes cannot have been the low union salary of Mr Wilson of about $50,000 – a man who was supporting his family in Perth, his own household in Melbourne, and his relationship with Ms Gillard in Melbourne, and who was not shown to have had any income from property exceeding the cost of mortgage repayments – but must have been some fund he did not own but did control. That is, she must have been aware of facts, which had she turned her mind to them, would have revealed that Mr Wilson was making payments to her in breach of some fiduciary duty.”
Ah…. luv turns a girl’s head.
the abc have a different take reb
BREAKING NEWS: Trade union royal commission submissions question Julia Gillard’s professional conduct
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-31/royal-commission-questions-gillards-professional-conduct/5858466
I mean, this is a submission by the prosecution, who couldn’t find any wrong doing, yet continue to make assertions.
I wonder if Gillard will finally get the big guns out, or are these accusations protected somehow?
But i wonder if the oz is going to be in line for some attention
JULIA Gillard received money from her corrupt union boyfriend’s “sham” fund to pay for renovations on her Melbourne house in the 1990s
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/julia-gillard-received-sham-funds-conduct-questionable/story-fng5kxvh-1227109035388
I mean, that is still an assertion not supported by facts, unless I am missing something, which is stated as fact by the oz
I think the Royal Commission has found what most reasonable people would have expected-
* She benefited personally from the proceeds obtained corruptly by her boyfriend
* Her conduct in representing him was questionable
It is about character, and Gillard’s record is dubious from the time she was ‘young and naive’
<i.I think the Royal Commission has found nothing to implicate Gillard, yet continue to put out assertions for which they found no convincing evidence for
http://christwire.org/2014/08/obama-is-infecting-christians-with-ebola-to-destroy-jesus-and-start-a-new-age-of-liberal-darkness/
Obama is not the antichrist.
http://christwire.org/2014/08/obama-nsa-now-wiretapping-the-prayers-of-all-christians/
Obama is not the antichrist.
Perhaps not, but can you prove it?
I mean, look at how many nutcases still believe he faked his birth certificate.
Meanwhile, we have a pm who won’t even clarify if he has revoked his UK citizenship or not.
So, I think you need to prove that Obama is not the antichrist 😉
BushfireBill (previously Aussie??????(bob??)) Explains the ongoing Gillard slur far better than my attempt.
I do hope she gets the lawyers out, and doesn’t just threaten this time. They have gone too far, too often.
Wasn’t it torture to see the way that legal weasel Jeremy Stoljar tortured the English language? He just couldn’t let go of Julia Gillard. One last swipe.
He starts out by saying she is innocent and should not be prosecuted, then a back hander about her legal skills (from twenty-effing-years ago!), then some stuff about Wilson and Blewitt (there goes Blewitt’s immunity scam), and finally the big one, uttered as if from the side of Stoljar’s rodent mouth. A final bitchy whisper. A sop to the conspiracy nuts and the Gillard haters… she was the “beneficiary of certain funds from Mr Wilson.”
You just couldn’t let it go, could you Jeremy? You had to leave one last insinuation that’ll keep the thing alive for years to come, didn’t you? One for your friends in the Whispering Crowd.
Now, it stands to reason that if Stoljar thinks she’s innocent – he didn’t say he just couldn’t prove it, or that it was lucky for her it was so long ago, some technical glitch… he said “it is submitted that she did not commit any crime, and was not aware of any criminality” – then why in God’s name put the sting in the tail? There is no way known that the likes of Bolt and his wrecking crew are not going to ignore the rest and bray about the “certain funds”.
She was the beneficiary of “certain funds”. Where she got them from, whether they were legitimately earned or not is not stated. Whether she knew they were dodgy is not stated either. His earlier acquittal of Gillard was sufficiently padded out by a couple of sentences from the “certain funds” statement to perpetuate the insinuation that she was scamming it. There’s just the insinuation that she received stolen money, but smells from oily rags like this have kept the Get Gillard industry going for 23 years already, and this will give it new life.
The “certain funds” were the first thing that Fairfax mentioned, in both the headline and the body of the text, only getting to the “did not committ any crime” bit half way down. The Australian has,
Gillard received ‘sham’ funds
JULIA Gillard received money from her corrupt union boyfriend’s “sham” fund to pay for renovations.
This isn’t what Stoljar said at all, but what he did say was a cue for tripe such as the above.
He went out of his way not to identify the source of the “certain funds” he says she received, and to not link them directly to illegally obtained monies.
But he left the door open just enough for the whisperers and the woman haters to continue gossiping. Stoljar’s supposedly definitive, factual advice to the Commissioner will be just another opinion to be discounted.
If Stoljar was of the mind that Gillard “did not commit any crime” – which is a pretty definitive utterance – he should have added that rider to the “certain funds” statement as well. Or perhaps he could have used the adverb “innocently”?
That he did not is a shame on him, and a condemnation of this mockery of a fair investigation he works for.
In other words, if she’s innocent then it doesn’t f*cking matter where the money for her renovations came from. The gutless wonder didn’t even have the courage to say which of the allegations about monies paid he accepted, and which he rejected.
A Royal Commission is supposed to find out the truth, not to perpetuate the “questions need to be answered” whispering campaign that has driven Australian politics and media into the sewer in which they now reside, happily pouring shit on anything and everything that passes by the hole they have dug for themselves.
If the Royal Commission is going to make any recommendations and come to any decisions as to facts, this kind of crap from Stoljar is not the way to do it.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2014/10/30/bludgertrack-51-3-48-7-to-labor-2/?comment_page=16/#comment-2072746
Will yabot run from this too?
Washington has asked Australia to build three Ebola field hospitals in West Africa and staff them with about 100 doctors and support workers as part of a stronger global effort to tackle the crisis.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/washington-wants-100-australians-to-run-ebola-hospitals-in-west-africa-20141031-11f0f8.html#ixzz3HkqFtkci
That’s gotta be an Onion like site toiletboss.
Do no forget, the B.O. in Ebola stands for Barack Obama. The rest of the acronym has been up for debate in the news media community.
No nutter is that nuts.
l notice `our` space-cadet isn`t spamming the joint with star-trek infrastructure, must be coz a couple of `launches` went-up in smoke this week.
“You just couldn’t let it go, could you Jeremy? “
Why should it be let go? Wilson has basically a gangster running a protection racket. Gillard was his
mollgirlfriend/lawyer who helped him conceal the cash…and she got some benefit out of it.She was essentially dismissed by her employer for her actions, it cost them a long standing commercial relationship and reputation.
Then she became Prime Minister in the most underhanded manner, further demonstrating her true character.
Everything`s Barack Obama`s Lousy Agenda
””’became Prime Minister in the most underhanded manner, further demonstrating”’#the”’true character””’
This is what l was saying about team-cheerers TomR, using the (with thanks) quote generated by `the-other` side to yours, while (with very minor edit) is true in that context, of the previous PM, but also true of the current PM, but that`s not where the tragedy stops, it will most likely be true about the `next` PM.
Why should it be let go?
Because, after being hounded for more than 20 years, nobody has been able to find any impropriety on the behalf of Gillard NOBODY!
Gillard was dismissed for transparency and competence in her professional previous employment.
She then demonstrated further incompetence in her political career (eg – Medicare Gold, Industrial Relations) and poor transparency problems with telling Rudd he had a few more months and immediately knifing him.
Let’s not pretend that her career was limited because of her gender, her problem was
crookednesslack of transparency.———–
Now off to the races, it’s an ideal day for watching p***ed young lasses get the staggers at about 4.30.
Every comment here is “questionable” … 🙄
It is about character, and Gillard’s record is dubious from the time she was ‘young and naive’
And that could apply to just about anyone I can think of in the present Cabinet and especially The Abbott … duh!
Give it a fkn break …
Gillard was dismissed for transparency and competence in her professional previous employment.
Freudian or what … ? Like a certain AFP Commissioner’s slip re piracy … LOL!
””nobody has been able to find any impropriety on the behalf of Gillard””
errm, depends on how you view the term `impropriety` tomR
they found joolya didn`t `break the law`, tho also said her professional conduct wasn`t up to scratch, which could translate to not being a `fit`n`proper` person/character (if that still applies) or recommendations against joolya to `the-bar` of any state she may want to practice law in, (l don`t think it is over for joolya yet)
Abbott was manager of a concrete factory, if that workplace had some problems with the EPA, or safety or possible misappropriation, I think people would be all over it, and I’d say fair enough.
It isn’t as if this was the only instance that demonstrates Gillard’s character, and I think the record of politicians employment and behaviour is entirely fair for analysis.
Their past behaviour is an indicator of the future.
——–
…and I’m just waiting for Fifi to finish dolling herself up.
Look over there – education
Emergency Budget Of Lying Abbott`s
(there`s one for you tomR, cheer-up)
“That’s gotta be an Onion like site toiletboss. ”
The best thing about christwire is reading the hilarious comments of those who seem unable to detect that it’s satire!
A surprising number of those on its threads take it seriously.
”””unable to detect that it’s satire!”””
What makes you think they should be able to detect satire.?
They can`t detect fiction. Just ask Tinfoil`osy.
Gillard was dismissed for transparency and competence in her professional previous employment.
I’m going to require evidence of that yomm, otherwise, it is just another in a long list of assertions
tho also said her professional conduct wasn`t up to scratch
Yes, the prosecution did say that. They also said lot’s of ambiguous and misleading things, but just because that is their opinion, doesn’t mean that is a fact.
From the questioning they gave her in ‘commission’, to this extremely politically motivated ‘submission’, it is obvious that this is not an independent assessment, it is all to feed trolls, as can be seen from above.
I’m going to require evidence of that yomm, otherwise, it is just another in a long list of assertions
Or as ToM would say … “Have you any proof for that?”
What bothers me is the precedent this government has set with regard RC for anything … they cost a fortune … and none of them actually DO anything … AWB RC was a squib too … just keeps shiny arses in money … its not productive (in fact its absolutely unproductive) … has no benefit for society … yet we pay through the noses …
Another incredibly stupid and archaic Pommie system …
”””’but just because that is their (#considered)opinion (#of the hearing), doesn’t mean that is a fact.”””
There you go again TomR (your team-cheering is showing), 🙂
you are un-willing to accept/believe the ”’joolyas professional conduct wasn`t up to scratch”” part of the hearing findings,
.
but then with the ”’joolya didn`t `break the law`,”’ part, its all chortle, chortle, chortle,
.
but your `chortling` is not exactly evidence joolya is innocent, that`s not how it works, the hearing couldn`t find evidence of guilt/etc, so that is what the hearing reported
.
(note. adding stink onto joolya does NOT remove stink from mr-rabbit) #team-cheerers
but just because that is their (#considered)opinion (#of the hearing)
considered! fuck me dead. Did you see their ‘cross-examination’ of Gillard at the ‘hearing’
They were clueless. Even the guy in charge had to tell them to stop repeating and to move on because THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE. Asking again won’t change that fact.
Everything about the prosecution was a hope and dream that the smear was true, but at no stage did they evince anything resembling actual evidence to show anything but that it was a smear.
So if they claim, in their ‘considered’ opinion, that she’s dodgy, I’ll immediately assume the opposite, because they have exposed themselves to be equicalent to the cranks and nutcases referred to earlier by the FPMJG that inhabit the internets.
There you go again TomR (your team-cheering is showing),
Well, no, I lost any interest in supporting Julia Gillard when she knifed Rudd, purely on principle … silly me … (having been asked to knife my manager – and mentor – I refused although I’d had a blistering row with him about his decision making) … I have had to make a similar decision … he was three levels away from a minister …
But the “questionable” comment is utterly stupid …
Imagine an unfair dismissal case of a manager and you fronted with … “his decision making was questionable” … you’d be laughed out of the hearing …
FYI, all decision making at a competent supervision, management, professional and certainly incompetent political level is questionable … its another fkn weasel word … its got no substance … this parrot is fkn dead …
but your `chortling` is not exactly evidence joolya is innocent
fucking oath it is. It’s called innocent until proven guilty. Try and think about things for a moment before you type
20+ years and dozens of VERY well connected and financed people all forensically digging and, “apparently”, bribing, all looking for an elusive smell of wrongdoing, all coming up with ZILCH. A big fat zero. But even then, the gutless, worthless, spineless cranks and crazies have to leave it with one final, unsubstantiated smear. After everything they have thrown already.
Get the fucken lawyers out on the crazies I say. It’s the only bloody language they understand. Hit ’em in their hip pockets.
””but your `chortling` is not exactly evidence joolya is innocent// fucking oath it is.”’
#err not it`s not
.
””It’s called innocent until proven guilty.””
#correct, just as l also said in same comment,
.
moving on, if joolya is as innocent as the pure driven, like you claim TomR, joolya will be suing some of these bastards for `slander` won`t she.? joolya now has all the `claims` against her read into the records of the hearing as evidence.? and plenty of evidence of `slander` within teabag-media too, no.?
“moving on, if joolya is as innocent as the pure driven, like you claim TomR, joolya will be suing some of these bastards for `slander` won`t she.”
I never thought it would happen but you said something i agree with.
If TomR thinks Julia is innocent that is all the information i need that Julia is guilty.
“coming up with ZILCH. A big fat zero.”
Haven’t you read my comments?
I’ve not considered the case against Gillard to be (mainly) one of criminality, it’s about her duplicitous character. Gillard’s history of duplicity and incompetence are legitimate areas of public scrutiny,
Her behaviour as a gangster’s
molllover/lawyer is an early indicator of the expediency and deception she exhibited in office.joolya will be suing some of these bastards for `slander` won`t she.?
Read my comments before making more of a fucking idiot of yourself teadrip
As to what I have been saying, time will tell. This might be the first salvo. But, it’s the oz she should be going for imo
Haven’t you read my comments?
Yes, thanks for the laugh 😉
I’ve not considered the case against Gillard to be (mainly) one of criminality
I must read yours closer than you do
Gillard was his moll girlfriend/lawyer who helped him conceal the cash…and she got some benefit out of it.
So, I asked you to back up your previous slur. Are you capable yet, or are you too busy fixing the leak in fifi?
TB #knifing kevin07
ditto, joolya/alp lost me, and quite a few others too
.
””’But the “questionable” comment is utterly stupid””’
1- l didn`t say that, 2-its paraphrased from the last 3or4 tv news clips
.
the main point l was trying to make to tomR is the cherry-picking aspect, he loves sentence/paragraph 1, but hates paragraph 2, the big extremes from the same report etc
Fine Tom R, it’s pretty simple really –
* The Royal Commission found that she most likely received a benefit, and
* Establishing the fund in secret from her fee paying client (the AWU) and her employer (Slater & Gordon) assisted Wilson conceal the cash.
“or are you too busy fixing the leak in fifi?”
Champagne is $140 a bottle!! The races cost a fortune!
The Royal Commission found that she most likely received a benefit
Just another factual error yomm, but why stop there. Make up more shit, or stick to patching fifi
teadrip,that last post is really a new level of stupid for you.
No, there was evidence that WIlson funded part of her renovation.
He certainly organised contractors to do the work, and Gillard was quite confused about invoices and receipts – just like Swann.
bishop isn’t the only one in the firing line here, hey yomm 😉
A Federal Labor frontbencher has called on Foreign Minister Julie Bishop to apologise for accusing former prime minister Julia Gillard of breaking the law.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-01/labor-calls-for-bishop-apology-over-gillard-slush-fund-claims/5859582
(even though yomm now denies saying what he previously just said lol)
No, there was evidence that WIlson funded part of her renovation.
Please yomm, “Show me the Money”
Consider it a dare 😉 (since you cannot stump up for your previous slurs, this should be no different)
”””it’s about ### duplicitous character.”””
”””history of duplicity and incompetence are legitimate areas of public scrutiny,”””
”””### behaviour”””
Unlike `our` corporate personal fluffer who will only apply these ideals to joolya and onions TomR,
l think these apply as well to; corporations, mr-rabbit, donors, lobbyists and even teabag-media to some extent.
I’ll help you out yomm, so you can perhaps get back to plugging that hole of yours
The skimpy nature of the available evidence does not make it possible to infer on the balance of probabilities that Ms Gillard was aware that she had received the $5,000 which [had been] put into her bank account on Mr Wilson’s instructions,” the assisting counsel wrote.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/31/julia-gillard-did-not-commit-any-inquirys-counsel-assisting-says
I’ll let BushfireBill finish off, cos I’m sick of typing, and going to concentrate more on me drinking
Secondly, the $5,000 that was supposed to have been paid into Gillard’s account… Stoljer found there wasn’t enough evidence to show it had even been paid, much less what its ultimate source was.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2014/10/30/bludgertrack-51-3-48-7-to-labor-2/?comment_page=17/#comment-2072811
history of duplicity and incompetence are legitimate areas of public scrutiny
I AGREE!
But 20+ years of digging and smearing and all they have is a lawyer who believed her clients, and dumped them the moment she found out what was going on.
Meanwhile, yabots daughter gets a free Uni course, and the Uni gets a sudden Government largesse. Nothing to see, move along.
FFS
”””But, it’s the oz she should be going for imo”””
l wouldn`t limit it to just one mast-head TomR, all of Limited-News and it`s associated off-shoots (ipa,network10) have peddled a lot of nonsense/smear, as has jones/2gb, if these so-called news-orgs have `slandered` joolya, she should go after the lot of`em, including gina`s fairfox and my abc.
The Royal Commission will use the balance of probability test to make findings about Gillard’s actions (and about any findings they make against unions)
That doesn’t satisfy the criminal standard, but it is enough to make judgements about a politician’s character, particularly when the deceitful behaviour is repeated over decades.
Gillard was doing some off the books dubious legal work for Wilson. Meanwhile he was flashing around lots of cash, organising Gillard’s building contractors, clocking up favours, and witnesses have given sworn evidence that he paid some cash to Gillard’s builders.
It is hardly surprising that a Counsel for the Royal Commission would find that Gillard obtained a benefit from her criminal boyfriend.
””’But 20+ years of digging and smearing””’
#correct #and l find it very strange that joolya hasn`t sued`em
#which makes me ask WHY.?
I’m sick of typing, and going to concentrate more on me drinking”
A sound choice.
Just back from the races. In no condition to read all the comments. Is Julia guilty or not guilty?
o Gillard is guilty.
o The $140 a bottle for champagne at Flemington is the biggest outrage
In no condition to read all the comments.
yomm was in no condition to post them, yet that didn’t stop him 😉
According to yomm, Gillard is GUILTY
wait, not guilty
no, guilty
Well, she’s obviously guilty, although, he would never accuse her of doing anything that would warrant her being guilty, unless he does of course
lol
And lets not forget, just because (according to yomm) she is guilty (or not) he doesn’t need to offer a scrap of evidence to prove it
So the question remains
Is yomm stoljer
They both seem to be accusing similar things (or not??), and have both proffered up the same amount of evidence to prove it.Watching the ‘council assisting’ asking Gillard again and again if she was guilty, and hoping against hope she’d say yes, just to confirm their desires, was degrading to watch
Yes, I’m convinced, stoljer is yomm 🙂
the youtube linked here is just hilarious. keystone cops. yet yabot, yomm and other rwdb’s continue to harp on about all this ‘evidence’ of corruption and standover tactics coming out from the witch hunt. A careful analysis (hey journo’s, look up that word) reveals something far different.
And in Bizarro World
Perspective?
That’s terrific TR.
On a slightly different note, Premier Xi invited Abbott to join his two silk roads infrastructure scheme, but the Americans pressured us not to sign.
So the infrastructure PM will probably decide on an independent arrangement after the G20 and FTA with China. This is bound to cause a rift with the US.
Infrastructure PM… ROTFL…
Love that Tom R… its funny cause its true…
The lies of extremist misogynist fucktards that use the terms “budget emergency” and “girly men” to propagate terror lies for power…
Jackie Kelly
There is no local representation any more as the party is dominated and run by lobbyists
Just as the ALP is resisting the Faulkner reforms (although hats off to Sam Dastyari in this regard) Abbot’s faction in NSW is extremely corrupt with slush funds and backhanders.
They are incapable of reform as the teabag christian loons have hijacked conservative liberalism… They realise that if the Howard reforms get up they will be unceremoniously booted.
Until the NSW fiberals is reformed and the rank and file reclaim liberalism from these disloyal treacherous and corrupt free market teabag radicals; Australia is doomed to the regressive sycophancy ideology of extremist neo con-men , compliantly fellating the oligarchy.
According to yomm, Gillard is GUILTY
wait, not guilty
no, guilty
True.
She’s guilty of being duplicitous. That’s not a criminal charge though.
I’m not sure it’s a waste. State ALP governments have also had enquiries into the predecessors of the CFMEU and charged officials.
It’s a cycle about each decade.
Re-marginalise the zealots…
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/02/g20-australia-makes-token-concession-on-climate-change-after-us-lobbying
Hmmmm…..
The hiatus indicates that CO2 has failed to warm the planet, which puts us in an invidious position.
Re-marginalise the zealots…
Does this mean that those nasty G20ers are going to stop yabot shirtfronting putin?
Bloody tree-huggers
From the WTF files
Medibank Private is not the government’s to sell:
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=42118#.VFai7X8aySP
“…The New Daily online publication has been campaigning to establish the fact of Medibank Private’s policy holder ownership. It has published communications to policy holders in the 1990s demonstrating an understanding that ownership entitlements were among the benefits of remaining in the fund. One policy holder considering leaving was told: ‘We would be very sorry to see you lose the equity you have built up with the fund.’ New Daily published the ‘smoking gun’ letter.
John Menadue, who has been covering the issue in his blog, says the balance sheets of Medibank Private before 1997 clearly show that the members, and not the government, owned the assets of the company. He points out that the Howard Government changed the accounting treatment of Medibank Private 1997 in an attempt to establish government ownership by stealth.
The New Daily reports that at least 60 members have lodged complaints with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission demanding an investigation into statements made to them by federal governments before 1998 that they were the owners of the health fund’s assets. There is also documentation and a petition at change.org…”
re tax change and the GST. I see it is the ‘mature debate’ we will have to have after the gubmint stole billions from the states, and is now forcing them to look elswhere for funds. But, why is the ‘debate’ limited to the GST? The Gaurdian had a good article about other options, all of which appear far better than the unfair GST
Raise the GST? No thanks. Here’s five better ways to fix Australia’s finances
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/01/raise-the-gst-no-thanks-heres-five-better-ways-to-fix-australias-finances
There are actually 6, and my preference is the sixth. It was in, and working.
But, even hockey is ‘maturely debating’ another one apparently at the G20, while doing everything in his power to unwind it, and give the big corporate players a bigger hole to rort through
So while ordinary people are expected to pay their fair share of tax every year, some companies earning billions of dollars can get away with hardly paying a cent.
In Ireland, they are finally seeing sense and closing this loophole.
Unfortunately, Australia is going in the opposite direction.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australias-stance-on-tax-avoidance-out-of-step-says-bill-shorten-20141030-11ea47.html
But the fact that this ‘mature debate’ has been forced because of another broken election promise is just astounding, but most often glossed over by our intrepid msm. It is something that should be taken into account and reminded to people at every step of the debate imo
It’s a little too late to say they can’t sell it now, isn’t it ao, seeing it has been sold already?
But it is what the libs do best. Take what is usually a Labor initiative, funded by taxpayers (our investment) then flogging it of for private investors, giving away taxpayer dollars to the few who can afford to snap up these entities.
in the same way that the gubmint is blackmailing states into flogging off infrastructure to private investors so that they can obtain funds to build more infrastructure from our dollars
So our tax dollars goes to the initial build, only to be flogged off to private concerns. Nice to know my money os going into some fat cats wallet.
TomR is still running from this l notice:
______________
”””’But 20+ years of digging and smearing”””
#correct #and l find it very strange that joolya hasn`t sued`em
#which makes me ask WHY.?
”””indicates that CO2 has failed to”””
Still running the with the junk-science huh el`dodo, ya`junk is still failing miserably and isn`t wiping-out mankind, unlike the stuff l posted in`ya padded cell (which you ran from and went shrill) such as `superbugs` ie-ebola, `ocean-acid` ie-krill-plankton and bees/frankenstein-food, just coz`ya deny this stuff, don`t mean you`ll be imune dumpty #teabags
TomR is still running from this l notice:
You really don’t think before posting do you teamempty
I have clearly said that I think she should. It is clear that in the past she has threatened it in relation to this matter, and she has just recently put out a statement that her lawyers will be responding in due course.
Why not wait and see how things progress first instead of making a fool of yourself?
‘We would be very sorry to see you lose the equity you have built up with the fund.’ New Daily published the ‘smoking gun’ letter.
And so do all taxpayers get shares? I mean just whose “equity” is it?
Now … I started paying tax in 1963 … mmm … perhaps I should ask for an apology for being one of the stolen war generation in 1970 and seek compensation for my losses …
Interesting concept … could the same question be asked of all government sell offs … no-one asked me if the Connomwealf Bank should be sold …
Its not me in denial bags.
””””””””””’the available evidence does not make it possible to infer on the balance of probabilities that Ms Gillard was aware that she had received the $5,000 which [had been] put into her bank account””””””””””
yeah tomr, that dodgey quote doesn`t really win me over, l`m pretty sure plenty of people down the bottom of the economic ladder have been fcuked-over in court by the exact opposite, How could you NOT be aware, indefinitely, of what is paid into your bank/ac, youi get a `statement` don`t you.?
It’s facinating that Teabagz shows fundamental dumbness at every opportunity.
What possible reason would Gillard have for suing? Who exactly should she sue?
Pickering probably doesn’t have a cent and would love the attention.
Who else should she sue teabagz?
(did I mention that teabagz is a complete dill?)
… re tax change and the GST. …
Kenny Henry must have a family trust and a few perqs from his PS position … 🙄
Two more that should have been on his list … at least he managed to include negative gearing … wonder what would happen if people knew that “negative gearing” is financespek for INTEREST FREE LOANS for rich people …
The part you miss, tea bag, is that they couldn’t prove if there was $5k put there or not by other parties. It was an allegation, nothing more.
Gillard covered all of this, and, personally, I’ll wait for her lawyers
I assume they will just put their submissions in, but who knows.
youi get a `statement` don`t you.?
Do you have your statements from 20+ years ago?
TR, I once believed … But it is what the libs do best. Take what is usually a Labor initiative, funded by taxpayers (our investment) then flogging it of for private investors
… and was brought up abruptly by someone (have no idea who) demonstrating that Labor governments flog off more than the Libnits …
Can’t win …
Who else should she sue teabagz?
Personally, I’d start with the oz
JULIA Gillard received money from her corrupt union boyfriend’s “sham” fund to pay for renovations on her Melbourne house in the 1990s
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/julia-gillard-received-sham-funds-conduct-questionable/story-fng5kxvh-1227109035388
Either that, or show us where they get this information from that was unavailable to the witch hunt?
demonstrating that Labor governments flog off more than the Libnits
I would like to see that. I know that they have flogged a lot off, electricity being the major culprit, but what we are seeing is blackmail from the gubmint to sell infrastructure to their mates to grow more for their mates from our hard done by.
”””The part you miss, tea bag, is that they couldn’t prove if there was $5k put there or not by other parties. It was an allegation, nothing more.”””
#well it`s a poor show by you tomr, you knowingly dropped the quote (from-guardian) knowing full-well it`s false.?
______________
teh-quote
””she had received the $5,000 which [had been] put into her bank account””
https://theguttertrash.com/2014/10/31/rostrum-shocked-and-outraged-edition/#comment-80946
______________
in which YOU omitted `allegation` tomr
in which YOU omitted `allegation` tomr
I have to admit, I have no idea what you are rambling about now teabag. Try it in English.
But Gillard should do something. Letting them get away with what was done would be a travesty.
””’I would like to see that. I know that they have flogged a lot off””
tb`s correct tomr, l`ve see the `list` too,
Lab at state/s level have flogged-off more of `our`stuff than the teabags, fire-sales all round
”””The evidence supports a finding that Ms Gillard was the beneficiary or recipient of certain funds from Mr Wilson.”””
.
”””’The counsel claimed the evidence given from others proved that Gillard received funds from her then boyfriend,
but was aware of facts that would have revealed where the funds originated if she had put her mind to it.”””’
.
”””But she was aware of facts, had she turned her mind to them, which would have indicated that the source of the wads of bank notes cannot have been the low union salary of Mr Wilson of about $50,000 – a man who was supporting his family in Perth, his own household in Melbourne, and his relationship with Ms Gillard in Melbourne”””
.
yeah team-cheerer, you omitted quite a bit tomr #teabags (from-YOUR-guardian-link)
hey tomR, is the hearing transcript(in-full) publicly available. Using snippets from teabag-media is most-likely not accurate anyway.
You forget a major detail teabag
There is no evidence that the money was ever given to Gillard.
Gillard denies it. Nobody has proven it. It is an accusation, made by a person whose story has changed. Their ‘evidence’ is a wish, by an individual with a dodgy recall, over an individual who cannot recall, and the former PM who denies it ever happened
Had Ms Gillard’s relevant bank account details still been available it would have been possible to resolve this issue one way or the other. However those records are no longer available, some 19 years having passed. Nevertheless, the fact that Mr Hem has a clear recollection of this event, and Mr Wilson does not deny it, and Mr Wilson was also in the habit of receiving cash sums of about this amount from Mr Blewitt from time to time as set out above, it is submitted that the Commission will accept that this transaction
took place.
Click to access SubmissionPart3-2.pdf
They are practically begging the commission to find something where nothing exists. It’s laughable.
Considering everything that Gillard claimed has turned out to be true on what they can actually prove, I’ll stick with “innocent until proven guilty”
Although I see that the oz has wrapped themselves in ‘according to” so prob will get away with it
Yet according to the oz, she still has ‘Questions To Answer”
According to Mr Stoljar’s submission, Ms Gillard received money from Mr Wilson’s ‘‘sham” fund to pay for renovations to her Melbourne home in the 1990s.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/serious-questions-remain-over-gillards-conduct/story-e6frg71x-1227110197766
Mr Stoljar also said Ms Gillard could have helped prevent criminal behaviour if she had acted with greater “rigour” as a solicitor.
This is of course going on the assumption that all the allegations they have made without actual evidence (except wishing for it) are remotely true.
How fucken ridiculous.
Does that quell your OUTRAGE at all teabagz?
Really, it’s all been said before. How many times do you need it bludgeoned into you?
thanks for the transcript tomR, nothing needs to be bludgeoned, l was just responding to YOUR quotes, YOU selected from teabag-media. lf l was inclined to do some `team-cheering`, l would stick to the transcript, not tie myself and others in knots using half-arsed quotes from teabag-media. 😉
Well, to be honest teabags, those ‘quotes’ were followed by “explanations” perhaps reading first will be of benefit, or asking for clarity, instead of shrilling
Theirs enough of that going on already without adding to the clamour.
But, it is obvious, they have nothing, and the only way they can even impute impropriety is by asking the commission to accept that something happened that they have no evidence for.
It’s keystone lawyers.
Will most probably get up knowing this witch hunt 😦
Sworn evidence is “evidence”
Basically, Gillard says I don’t know, I don’t remember and I had some receipts or invoices or something.
Others say – “my clear recollection is….”
Courts routinely draw conclusions from such evidence in civil cases, and that’s the standard we’re talking about here.
Sworn evidence is “evidence”
So do we take note of his written or oral ‘evidence’ yomm, as they differ?
If this were ‘evidence’ (or a witness statement), why would the council use such weasel terms as this
Assuming that this transaction occurred,
You do know what happens when you ASS-YOU-ME don’t you yomm 😉
l was never shrilling tomR, that`s our corporate personal fluffers job, and l dare not en-crouch, l also never claimed it wasn`t a witch-hunt, of course it is, and most likely continue to be so. However, there is still aspects that don`t ring true to me too. The first, joolya aint fighting back/suing the slanderers. The second, joolya obviously didn`t balance/confirm her bank statements were correct (back in the days of being young and naive, l guess) which l find odd, not a crime tho. l have always checked mine, tick off that each wage is paid, each withdrawal correct. Yep, l`ve found errors, screeched, and got`em corrected. lt is very strange (to me anyway) that a so-called `professional` doesn`t do this. lt is also `odd` that once she knew `wilson` was bent, joolya didn`t make a point of verifying her accounts, even for her own peace of mind. (l would have, if l had a dodgey spouse/partner, just for the `peace-of-mind`aspect) Had joolya done that, found something `unexplainable`, she may have kept these bank statements tucked away safely in her `safe` for future reference, (like a birth certificate) Note, that does not mean criminality TomR, just that things don`t add-up.
joolya obviously didn`t balance/confirm her bank statements were correct
What are you talking about here? There is nothing to show they are incorrect. There is only the changing testimony of one person.
In a criminal case lawyers are red hot in picking up minor inconsistencies in statements, and using this to undermine the credibility of a witness, particularly the victim. This doesn’t mean the crime didn’t occur.
In civil cases people are entitled to make judgements as to who they prefer to believe, who has more to gain by providing evidence, who has more to lose by “not quite recalling”
If the statements are reasonably consistent about money changing hands, and the context in which it happened, people are entitled to draw conclusions – on the balance of probability, this of course does not satisfy the criminal standard, which seems to be what you require.
If the statements are reasonably consistent about money changing hands
But they are not (kinda like I pointed out).
Whereas Gillards statements have remained consistent
Sworn evidence is evidence, and if someone has gone to the trouble it can be considered.
Gillard didn’t provide her invoices or receipts (or something and what’s the difference between them anyway?) so people are entitled to believe the evidence they consider more credible.
”””There is nothing to show they are incorrect.”””#agree-nor-correct
maybe l`m wrong, but l can`t find joolyas testimony saying;
.
yes l always balanced my bank statements, and there was never any `unexplained` deposits in my bank-ac while l was banging wilson
.
(or similar) gotta ref in the transcript.? l can`t find anything except `don`t-remember` type
Gillard didn’t provide her invoices or receipts
From 20 odd years ago ROFL
Do you mean receipts or invoices ROFL
people are entitled to believe the evidence they consider more credible.
As I said yomm
Whereas Gillards statements have remained consistent
gotta ref in the transcript.
Got a link to it handy?
””Got a link to it handy?””
lt`s the pdf link YOU dropper tomR,
l don`t need `link` just – page X 2nd para or similar, thanks
The link above is the submission by the keystone council, not a transcript of the cross examination of Gillard.
It is heavily redacted to support their accusation, oops, argument 😉
Sworn evidence is “evidence”
That’s questionable … if it were so then why bother with a judge and (in some civil cases) a jury?
“eye witnesses” are notoriously unreliable despite any TV shows you may watch …
it can be considered. … but not necessarily accepted …
… invoices or receipts (or something and what’s the difference between them anyway?)
LOL! What’s the difference? One goes out, one comes in – the difference between stayin’ alive and Centrelink … too much sea water methinks …
Don’t ever go into business … and you check your bank accounts “religiously” LOL!
Hem, Wilson and Blewitt? KNOWN to be dodgy On the balance of probabilities I’d say their evidence would be a “fail”
The first, joolya aint fighting back/suing the slanderers
Why bother … the point has been proven … nothing to look at here … a court case is costly, time consuming and stressful … believe me … and if she’s getting post political PM perqs she won’t need the money … hey.
Storm in a teacup … beat up … catlik plot … LNP witch-hunt … frivolous use of taxpayers money – especially in the middle of a budget crisis … chortle …
teabggz, here’s the section Gillard rips apart hems rant
A. No, because that would have become apparent to me when
I looked through the payments that I made for the work,
that there was painting that was done that I hadn’t paid
for. I would also have thought that Mr Hem would be in
a position to correctly describe the property. I would
also have thought Mr Hem would be in a position to
correctly describe the tradespeople who were at the
property when he said he visited. Given Mr Hem is not in
either of those positions, he has the nature of the
property wrong, the layout of it wrong, he has the combination of tradespeople wrong, and I checked that
I paid for the work, no, I don’t think it is possible.
Click to access turc-transcript-10september2014.pdf
It is obviously not what the keystone council wants to see.
the point has been proven … nothing to look at here
Obviously, for one side of politics, no amount of innocence is enough, whereas the other operate under completely different rules
What is this country being turned into … Howard and now The Abbott have to be the most divisive PM’s Australians have ever seen … I can only think of Joh B Peterson as their equal as a state Premiere …
http://www.news.com.au/national/crackdown-on-baby-boomers-who-effectively-retire-on-the-dole/story-fncynjr2-1227110595252
As The Abbott & The Acolytes deliberately close down businesses and unemployment rises … who do they blame …
“That’s questionable …
Not it isn’t TB, and you should know that given the CV you claim. Civil matters are determined by the “best evidence” available.
If a young woman claims to have been sexually harassed at work, there are rarely witnesses. Both she and the alleged harasser may give contradictory sworn evidence. A judge (or tribunal) will then have to decide who they believe.
If they said “that’s questionable” about sworn evidence, there would seem little point in ever bring a sexual harassment (for example) complaint to a tribunal.
”””””Nevertheless, the partnership was extremely unhappy with both Mr Murphy and Ms Gillard, considered that proper vigilance had not been observed and that their duties of utmost good faith to their partners especially as to timely disclosure had not been met.
Click to access GillardMFI1Tab5.pdf
”””””””’page-3”””””’
”’proper vigilance had not been observed and that their duties of utmost good faith to the kevin07 regime”’
#pattern of behaviour.?
that pdf is a good read, and l suspect a lot closer than the `haters-v-teamcheerers` type nonsense from other sources
What’s the difference? One goes out, one comes in – the difference between stayin’ alive and Centrelink … too much sea water methinks
TB, I was referring to Gillard’s clear confusion between receipts and invoices, not mine.
””””””DEPOSET OF MONEY INTO BANK ACCOUNT
I refer to paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the statement. l have no recollection of ever
receiving moneys deposited in my account from Bruce Wilson or on behalf of Bruce
Wilson. When these aiiegations were first aired in The Australian Newspaper in Eats
2012, | endeavoured to obtain copies of my bank statements. However, I was
advised that neither of my then banks were able to locate my banking records for the
relevant period.
Click to access GillardStatement3.pdf
””””””””””””’
yeah right tomR, THIS is joolyas `actual` evidence on her `bank`statements, which is what l referred to above
So, unless they can come up with some actual physical evidence, it didn’t happen
I was referring to Gillard’s clear confusion between receipts and invoices
You have the link to the testimony yomm, are you able to highlight the ‘confusion’?
Not it isn’t TB, and you should know that given the CV you claim. Civil matters are determined by the “best evidence” available.
1. I don’t “claim” a CV I have one …
2. All legal matters are determined on the best evidence available (and can often be overturned on appeal) … I know what “on the balance of probabilities” means … and frankly based on the lack of character of the “witnesses” giving “evidence” the “balance” would not fall in their favour.
If a young woman claims to have been sexually harassed at work, there are rarely witnesses. Both she and the alleged harasser may give contradictory sworn evidence. A judge (or tribunal) will then have to decide who they believe.
Having terminated two men in my career for sexual harassment – one for actually touching a girl’s breast deliberately ( which then becomes assault and a criminal offence) … I can assure you I know dodgy truth when I see it … now I haven’t watched all the evidence in the RC … as you seem to have … but the lack of conclusions and the “questionable” outcomes suffice enough to indicate to this objective observer … its simple muckraking … and on the balance of probabilities … quite a lot of abuse of power …
If they said “that’s questionable” about sworn evidence, there would seem little point in ever bring a sexual harassment (for example) complaint to a tribunal.
Sworn evidence is often what people “think” not what actually happened … – that’s why it is always questionable – sworn evidence must be corroborated … in the case of Gillard’s accusers this is not the case …
On the balance of probabilities your personal bias is getting in the way of being reasonable …
Just sayin’ …
“and frankly based on the lack of character of the “witnesses” giving “evidence” the “balance” would not fall in their favour…
You’re absolutely right TB – Gillard’s history of disloyalty and duplicity should clearly count against her.
In relation to Nick Styant-Browne and also yomms previous allegations that Slater and Gordan got rid of Gillard because of this issue, I’ll go to the horses mouth instead of cranks and crazies on the internets
“Ms Gillard acted for a wide variety of trade unions and individuals in employment-related matters, including various branches of the AWU from 1991 until 1995. In September 1995 Ms Gillard took a leave of absence from Slater & Gordon in order to campaign for the Senate,” said Grech, adding that these events occurred more than 17 years ago and that none of the individuals involved remain in the employment of Slaters.
“Ms Gillard’s resignation from the firm became effective on 3 May 1996 when, Slater & Gordon understands, she commenced employment with the then Victorian Opposition leader as an advisor.”
….
He emphasised Slaters ongoing relationship with Gillard, saying the firm has regularly invited her back for events and functions and, like a number of other notable former lawyers, named a meeting room in recognition of her achievements.
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/news/slaters-backs-gillard%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98non-story%E2%80%99
Gillard’s history of disloyalty and duplicity should clearly count against her.
Tell it to Wilkie who, even after being let down on his full pokies reform package, still backed her over yabot.
even after being let down on his full pokies reform package
Yep, there’s plenty of history of duplicity and double dealing. It should count against her, if TB’s opinion is to be accepted.
TB, I was referring to Gillard’s clear confusion between receipts and invoices, not mine.
C’mon yomm it’s not that hard
Q. Where do I find that in either your statement – well,
let’s start with your statement. Where do I find that in
your statement?
A. I think it is comprehended by the expression, “I do
have a series of receipts.” What I meant was I had been,
you know, invoiced and paid.
Click to access turc-transcript-10september2014.pdf
And yet keystone council couldn’t comprehend that, to have receipts, you would have invoices, and got very worked up about Gillard not using the term ‘invoice’ enough when talking about ‘receipts’
It was all kinda embarrassing really. Yet yomm clings to this failure by council as some kind of failure by Gillard.
Yep, there’s plenty of history of duplicity and double dealing
What was here occupation recently? 😯
It should count against her,
Yes, but let’s weigh up the other side too, or would you prefer to ignore the NBN, NDIS, Carbon Price, Plain Packaging ……
Actually, I think I know the answer to that lol
Now, after a tip-off by an insider, it appears that Nick Styant-Browne is related (oh-so-tenuously) to someone who works in Tony Abbott’s office. Nick Styant-Browne’s brother is Tony Styant-Browne, Tony’s son is Oliver Styant-Browne, Oliver’s partner is Kylie Moreland, and Kylie’s sister is Helen Moreland. Helen Moreland is Abbott’s social policy adviser.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/08/21/styant-browne-family-ties-acp-buyer-cold-nt-labor-attack/?wpmp_switcher=mobile
”””””””””””A. No, because that would have become apparent to me when I looked through the payments that I made for the work, that there was painting that was done that I hadn’t paid for. I would also have thought that Mr Hem would be in a position to correctly describe the property.””””””””””
kind of a weasely answer tho, no.?
now l know people in hearings/court can`t go and say `he/she`s-a-lying-cnut`, but normal/innocent people don`t get their home renos paid for by onions/corporations, which makes me think something, somewhere was not on the up`n`up, thus joolya had to remain in the weasel language, (just in case)
everybody l know, `pays` for their own home-renos and repairs, and if they were in `court` and asked the same question, they would not give some weak, weasel word reply, they would say ””l`m absolutely fcuking certain l/spouse paid for all my home-reno works”” and verify their bank statements the damn cheques cleared etc
When was the last time grandpa/mrs-tb didn`t do this.? 🙂
and verify their bank statements the damn cheques cleared etc
From 20 years ago ROFL
And your complaining about a lawyer using lawyery language when a massive attempt is being made to stitch her up.
I’d be a tad careful to.
I mean, look at the trouble you get into when you say ‘receipts’, and ‘assume’ that that would cover the fact that you also have received invoices
ROFL
“exit interview” = code for given the boot
Not `from` 20 years ago half-wit, but at the time immediately.
Are you a `home-owner/buyer` tomr.?
Bet you know you paid all`ya bills, maintenance, car-repairs, petrol and probably bleat to ya`missus about the cost of everything. TB still complains to the missus about the staggeringly large meat-price hike of 65, when beef cuts went up half-a-shilling per pound.
(never mentioned `receipts` either, unless its in a quote)
“and frankly based on the lack of character of the “witnesses” giving “evidence” the “balance” would not fall in their favour…
You’re absolutely right TB – Gillard’s history of disloyalty and duplicity should clearly count against her.
That’s not even your usual quick wit, ToM … Gillard really irks you, hey?
tbagz
kind of a weasely answer tho, no.?
Seems perfectly clear and simple to me …
When was the last time grandpa/mrs-tb didn`t do this.?
First … I’d be very fkn careful with the insults if I were you …
Second … like most people we toss old invoices (because we were in business for 16 years we toss ’em every seven years – although the ATO recommends five) …
… therefore 19 years would be a bit of a problem …
… and I don’t know ANY tradie who wouldn’t follow up on payment!
Tell a lie! – Figure of speech! – I do know one who did some work and then never came back … very odd – exception to the rule I’d say … on the balance of probabilities …
its generally the responsibility of the person who invoices to make sure they get paid …
“exit interview” = code for given the boot
Now that’s weasel words …
TB still complains to the missus about the staggeringly large meat-price hike of 65, when beef cuts went up half-a-shilling per pound.
Tick …
but at the time immediately.
But these questions are being asked 20 years later?
Gillard really irks you, hey?
He’s never been the same since that crimson witch and her bovver boys took his lunch money all those years ago when he was still ‘young and naive’ 😉
Now that’s weasel words …
That’s probably the kindest way of putting it TB 😉
I wonder why the turc weren’t interested in this ‘evidence’ ?
””in business for 16 years we toss ‘em every seven years””
Yep, sure TB, no worries about that.
But let`s say you had a largish deposit in your bank-ac that you and the missus couldn`t identify, Would you have tossed them.? and if your, say, dodgey brother/cousin/inlaw/etc was in business-with/ working-for you.? Would a largish deposit in bank-ac `spark` discussion with you and missus.?(l-bet-it-would) For sure, so far, joolya is not criminal, but neither is she `stink-free` either.
But let`s say you had a largish deposit in your bank-ac that you and the missus couldn`t identify
Yes, but you are making the assumption it was there. Gillard said exactly the same. If she’d seen it there, she would recall it.
And you are making the assumption it wasNT there.
Joolya never stated, l always checked my bank-statements and there was never any `mystery` deposit. All transactions accounted for.etc
(while l don`t have 20-year old b-statements, if l was in court, l could say that, no problem)
And you are making the assumption it wasNT there.
Well, I’m going on the evidence available that it wasn’t. It needs to proven to have been there.
And you are making the assumption it wasNT there.
And you forget that it was an accusation not a proven fact … now who’s weaselling with words …
Accusations in court have to be proven … the onus is on the accuser not the accused …
Despite not 1 charge Nada Zilch Zip….
Poor old Gloria is hyperventilating like some here…
http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/72111#.VFcYJlWUfpY
As I said before… If there is a crime, where is the proof?
Where are the charges?
What a fucking crock
Not that a RC is a court anyway … its a commission of enquiry that is charged by a head of state (PM in Australia) to simply compile a report …
Another LNP Legacy …
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/bankruptcy-on-the-rise-in-australia/story-e6frfku9-1227111202532
”””the onus is on the accuser not the accused”””
correct, agree, and stated above,
l`m just pointing-out, the weak, watery, unconvincing answers joolya gave, doesn`t really sound like joolya does not have a few skeletons in the closet, the `language` of her answers is not definitive, for want of a better word, nor do the `don`t-recall` type answers convince either when l think about being `innocent` and being in joolyas shoes(as in the questions/explainers l posed to tb above)
“”Journos must feel relieved re Brandis power over them, as he finds Gillard has case to answer despite being cleared of any criminality in RC””
When did Brandis say Gillard has a case to answer. I cant find it
“l`m just pointing-out, the weak, watery, unconvincing answers joolya gave, ”
I agree with Teabagz.
I’m a JP and rest assured I have always been present when I have witnessed anything.
Even 20 years later I can with certainty if asked …….
Did I witness a document when Mr X was present ? I can definitely answer “Yes” no ifs no buts.
I have no need to fall back on her bullshit stock answer of not “Yes”” but ….” Ï believe I have always performed my duties as a lawyer correctly”
Or some such crap.
Not that she was asked about the PoA at the RC. But she was previously.
She’s nothing but a fucking liar who has simply gotten away with it.
‘…..gotten away with it.’
It does appear to be the case, she handled the matter judiciously. It’ll be in her memoirs.
So, Gillard is guilty of using a form of language that you are not happy with, that is the sum of her crime?
Meanwhile, our present pm has so many unanswered questions over matters arising over his actions whilst he is a member of parliament, but Gillard is being hounded for ‘poor grammar’ from decades ago.
what a fucking joke.
l`m just pointing-out, the weak, watery, unconvincing answers joolya gave
She sat in a chair being grilled by people whose only aim was to catch her up in a slip on words, and your ‘unconvinced’ because she used careful language.
How many fucking hours of interrogation and accusations does one person need to endure before the cranks and crazies on the internets let up!
(don’t bother with an answer, it was rhetorical)
‘…..gotten away with it.’
Gotten away with what, exactly?
“l`m just pointing-out, the weak, watery, unconvincing answers joolya gave, ”
Chuckle … the accuser – remember?
I’m a JP and rest assured I have always been present when I have witnessed anything.
Even 20 years later I can with certainty if asked …….
Chuckle, chuckle … that’s why people go to a JP and they stamp (with number and officialdom), sign and in my superannuation case they have to provide printed name and PHONE number …
… and in your defence, as a JP (thank you)*, Wally … I challenged the super boofheads re privacy … of JPs …
*JPs work for free … helps business tho’, hey, Wally? 🙂 BTW, the statement “with certainty” is “questionable” … 20 years ago was 1994 … when did you start posting at Blogocracy? LOL! (So many things we choose to forget)
I have no need to fall back on her bullshit stock answer of not “Yes”” but ….” Ï believe I have always performed my duties as a lawyer correctly”
“I have no need to fall back on her BS” … WhoTF are you?
‘…..gotten away with it.’
There’s a word* that goes down with … “exact same” …
*gotten
Er, with what?
Why are tories so fkn combative … catliks so nasty and vindictive … The Abbott & The Canberra Monastery is like a time machine from the Spanish Inquisition or Salem city …
It would be weird if it wasn’t so fkn real ….
”””Gotten away with what, exactly?”””
Hiding the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from the public. Did you watch `any` part of joolya at the hearing.? l did. Her body language was not that of a fully `innocent` person. She just can`t be proven guilty (as the law requires) of a crime. #team-cheering
Her body language was not that of a fully `innocent` person
Holy fuck, so you are a body language expert now ROFL
Yes, I watched it, I watched the clown council fumbling over words, and trying to catch Gillard out over words, like the ‘invoices’ mentioned above. He really thought he was onto something there, until, as Gillard patiently explained, since she had said she had receipts, she assumed it was a given that they were the result of an invoice.
But clown really was excited there
Her body language, from my ‘expert’ opinion, was of someone who held disdain and contempt for all within that room. And I don’t blame her one bit for her attitude.
#team-cheering
And baggerz is definitely on the #getGillard team aint he, that much is clear
Come-on TomR, you should know me better than that by now.
lf l was a fur-seal hunter, l would want both `teams` to be baby-seals. #ClubEmBoth 🙂
#ClubEmBoth
Yea, but in this case, ya clubs made of bullshit
Her body language was not that of a fully `innocent` person.
LOL! So could you describe what you saw and how it portrayed her supposed guilt? Don’t forget the detail of NVC’s …
(ToM and Wally are gunna love this … business comms including NVC … ’tis subject I trained OH&S specialists in … and guess what, tbagz … your reply had better be good … )
#ClubEmBoth From SS Misogynist … my intelligence officer is saying … FMD! What a circus …
And I thought Howard brought the Dicks out of the woodwork … I’m wondering whether I should apply for Pommie citizenship myself …
Maybe it appears that way to team-cheerers that only look for victories in their canberra team and faults in the other team, but when l look at both teams in canberra `and` both teams in the state/s, they all need the baby-seal treatment as far as l`m concerned. Tho everybody seems happy in noddyland at the moment. Nsw, both teams are fcuking crooks and need a good baby-sealing. lt seems that in the next few months in Vic will be going to the polls, and my bet is both teams there will be proven to need a baby-sealing too.
”””#ClubEmBoth From SS Misogynist … my intelligence officer is saying””””’
Well l hope ya`doing the correct thing tb, and pointing-out to`ya intelligence officer l`ve never `attacked` joolya on grounds of her sex, (which you should know)
both teams are fcuking crooks and need a good baby-sealing
Yes, because they have been found guilty, with evidence, of wrong doing.
But taking your club of bullshit to Gillard because you don’t like her body language.
Welcome to the league of irrelevance teabagger, you are its captain
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5905-morgan-poll-federal-voting-intention-november-3-2014-201411030525
I’m done with the Julia Gillard posturing, body language? what fucking imbecilic nonsense
Fucktards are worst than climate change deniers…
They should just change the name of this government to “big tobacco”
Here is a big asses bucket of perspective
No time for that ao, we need to get in a body language to put out their slur on Gillard, forget the here and now.
That` nice TomR. Did`ya watch 4corners.?
lf you had, you will now understand why Lib, Lab, Corporates and Onions `all` need a good baby-sealing. All of`em are as fcuking bad as the other. Teabags refused to get rid of re-phoenixing, organised crime has used re-phoenixing to infiltrate onions and small-biz, all to the detriment of the average joe. #ClubEmAll
I feel quite chastened.
I’ve been pointing to evidence and arguing the point about Gillard’s duplicity, it was all a mistake
All I had to do was point out her guilty body language.
————-
It’s makes as much sense as – ‘don’t blame the people that fired the missile for shooting down the plane’
“Wonder if @australian could spare him to check out Miss Abbott’s scholarship?”
I would love to see that!
Pretty sure that a sitting PM using his influence to secure disparate advantage (even if it’s no more ‘provable’ than attacks on Gillard) for his offspring absolutely meets the ‘In The Public Interest’ test. I could care less who the siiting PM is/was in that instance.
What will happen though, is that if any scrutiny at all is directed towards it, it will be a convenient distance after Abbott exits politics ‘gracefully’.
The cunts all seem to have a ‘gentleman’s’ understanding to pad out any serious incursions against eachother.
I’d prefer ruthless pursuit & reprisal when it comes to any elected official of dubious credibility.
I’ve been pointing to evidence and arguing the point about Gillard’s duplicity
You sure you haven’t been doing a little more than that yomm?
Gillard was his moll girlfriend/lawyer who helped him conceal the cash…and she got some benefit out of it.
…….
“exit interview” = code for given the boot
…..
TB, I was referring to Gillard’s clear confusion between receipts and invoices, not mine.
……
She’s guilty of being duplicitous.
…..
If the statements are reasonably consistent about money changing hands,
You also forgot to mention the “statements” weren’t “reasonably consistent about money changing hands” 😉
Yea, but you’re just “pointing to evidence and arguing the point”, aint ya ROFL
Yep, like yomm, yabot is being careful and judicious NOT
The political motivation behind all of this is so blatant. When will the msm finally call them on it?
The adults fixing waste and mis-management
What as opposed to a criminal psychologist, psychiatrist, prudent legal professional…
I’m sure your just ace at stamping documents and signing shit with your extensive training and experience 🙄
Teabag I know you want the crumb to be a loaf of bread…. best you quit before this childish hatred consumes you…, most of us thinking with our brains and not our ass knew that it was all over before it started.
I will repeat for the last tiresome time… if they had any actual eventuality proof it would be in a real court as opposed to a vindictive show and accuse public opinion mock trial as fodder for their childish “beaten by a girl” fixation.
“I will end the waste”….tony abbott
“”BTW, the statement “with certainty” is “questionable” … 20 years ago was 1994 “”
I’m certain because that’s what a JP MUST DO. Not once have I deviated from that and in fact in dozens of instances I have refused to “witness”a signature or sign as a JP because some numbskull has already signed the bloody document or cannot produce sufficient ID to prove who they are.
Julia never gave an unequivocal “Yes” whenever asked about the PoA
From memory, she answered that she signed all of her legal documents correctly and added also with correct dates.
I would take that as a yes. Or is that not ‘unequivocal’ enough for you?
Cuts through it does; …. that honesty stuff is very very powerful…
Don’t tell me that the Middle East is “unrest” is not a civil war …
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/11/04/uk-syria-crisis-qaeda-idUKKBN0IO2A220141104
So The Abbott drops the ball with alternative energy and now Ebola (probably the true enemy of the world – at the moment) … and attempts to become involved in a religious civil war …
http://www.news.com.au/national/prime-minister-tony-abbott-keeps-his-distance-from-international-effort-to-fight-the-disease/story-fncynjr2-1227113756202
Every decision is the opposite to the right one … I’ve worked with CEO’s like that, ignored advice from senior managers and specialist advisors and both organisations went belly up … others struggle and cheat to survive …
SS Libnit is heading for the iceberg and the captain just keeps shuffling the deckchairs …
Putting a woman in a headlock sometimes justified, Cory Bernardi tells domestic violence inquiry…
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/putting-a-woman-in-a-headlock-sometimes-justified-cory-bernardi-tells-domestic-violence-inquiry/story-fnn8dlfs-1227115178445