Search results

OK, have i got this right. There is no 'set' definition for bogan. The definition can change depending on who's using the word and what they find distasteful. In other words anyone can be a bogan if someone thinks they are, including those calling others bogan :);).

I'm thinking Stephen Smith is probably their safest bet right now, even Shorten is looking dodgy. They really don't have any half decent options. I think to put Rudd back in as PM would be total insanity, and proof that their judgement is seriously lacking. They booted him for a reason. It...

I agree, they don't appear to have dropped it. It may have been a clerk error - will check again when the trial resumes (at this stage she's not on the list for tomorrow).

In the media yes. I suppose the courts may have made an error when recording the charges being heard today. That, or one of the charges was dropped, and the media isn't aware of it.

I know that :rolleyes:. She was charged with assault but according to court documents she wasn't fronting up for assault charges today, only theft. Charges often get dropped, even if the incident did happen (which I'm NOT disputing happened btw). I'm quering the accuracy of the...

MJF fronted court this morning on theft charges only, yet the paper has reported theft and assault?? Error of the courts? So why has that not been pulled?

Not feeling so much on the outta now, sista :).

The right (or should that be left :p) thing to do is expand to calling everyone a bogan, so as to not hurt anyones feelings :D.

Not over-reaching anything. I was speculating on WHY the article might have been pulled (I know they took care to say she didn't embezzle). http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/prime-ministers-hand-overplayed/story-e6frfifx-1226125924173

There are alot of damning 'assertions' made here. Would Bob Kernohan sign a stat dec making the claims he has without some proof? You would think not. Would JG challenge him, being the source of much of this, I wonder? You would think not if he has proof. Geez, how much murkier can...

I think the whole thing smells much like the CT case but worse, regardless of whether she lived with him, spent nights with him or just saw him most days. As it's been reported previously that she lived with him (has she denied this at any stage) I thought the 'embezzled funds' to be the most...

You questioned why the article was pulled and I thought the article could shed some light :rolleyes:.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/gillard-calls-murdoch-paper-sorry-20110829-1jig6.html And no one at The Australian, apparently, saw the legal danger in a paragraph beginning ''what the lawyers would not allow to be reported was …'' -------------------- She has always strenuously...

Yep, assertions or not, guilty or not, the fact is if you lay down with dogs, as Julia has, you get flees. No amount of protest changes that.

I remember when all this came to light a few years ago. I didn't think it was the 'actual' living together that was contentious because I've read that before along with many of the other details mentioned. It sounds more like 'some' of the detail mentioned in that scrapped report may border...

Did she not represent Wilson at S & G (?conflict of interest)? Did she not live with him throughout this time? Did she NOT question anything? Geez, her live in boyfriend stole 1M :eek:. Julia is incompetent but not totally stupid - if she didn't have roots in a culture that doesn't recognize...