GILLARD- Is she mad, stupid, guilty..or all three?

josko

josko

On the subject of a story published yesterday on Julia Gillards unknowing involvement in "criminal" activity while with a boyfriend as a young lawyer.

These articles are all fast disappearing.

Andrew Bolt has been gagged or has given up. He will not talk about politics. He has said his former campaigns for free speech are gone. He has quoted Gillard as a "fantastic Prime Minister.":eek:

How long until this report is gone:


"THE alarm bells had been ringing in Julia Gillard's office for days but they really went shrill after the first of the Prime Minister's media staff arrived yesterday, as they do daily, at 4.30am.

Flicking through the news websites, the staff member was put on high alert by a column by Glenn Milne on The Australian 's commentary page.

It concerned the embezzlement about 20 years ago of union funds and the subsequent fraud conviction of one of Ms Gillard's old boyfriends, a former Australian Workers Union official named Bruce Wilson."

But then Milne added a startling detail about Ms Gillard and Mr Wilson. ''What the lawyers would not allow to be reported was the fact that Gillard shared a home in Fitzroy bought by Wilson using the embezzled funds. There is or was no suggestion Gillard knew about the origin of the money,'' he said.

The Prime Minister made a furious early morning call to John Hartigan, the chief executive of News Ltd, which publishes The Australian and another to the editor, Chris Mitchell. She demanded an immediate retraction and apology amid threats of legal action."
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/bomb...rdoch-press-20110829-1jipb.html#ixzz1WT5ftoOo

Glenn Milne will not comment on his story about Gillard, which has been removed.


A Fairfax Reporter cancelled an interview with a Senior Union Official on the above topic but the interview was cancelled.

I think Ms Gillard is getting a bit cranky.

Is this an attack on freedom of speech?

Regards JO
 
Hi Jo,

I don't think it's an attack on free speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean the writer or speaker is free of responsibility if they get it wrong. It looks like Milne got the story wrong, and the Oz were forced to apologise.

Even Bolt said that he didn't think she shared a house with this fellow, so I'm not sure where Milne got his information from.

Hopefully he wasn't mixing his migraine tablets with grog again!
 
Might be yawn, but its true.


Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism is a 2004 documentary film by filmmaker Robert Greenwald that criticises the Fox News Channel, and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, claiming that the channel is used to promote and advocate right-wing views. The film says this pervasive bias contradicts the channel's claim of being "Fair and Balanced", and argues that Fox News has been engaging in what amounts to consumer fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfoxed

http://www.outfoxed.org/

And the unthinking right wing bogan electorate laps this stuff up. All bow down to News Ltd and its fair and balanced reporters and believe every single thing they say.

Is any more evidence required? Seriously!

lizzie said:
Yawn ......
Click to expand...
 
Don't go looking for conspiracies

Josko, the fact that the article has been withdrawn is more likely to do with the inferences being drawn from the facts at the time were bordering on being slanderous. And irrespective if legality, in my view, disrespectful to the office of the Prime Minister.

Bolt had mentioned this as well, saying there was nothing illegal done, but was challenging her judgement. Even that is harsh. I am sure there are plenty of people who have had relationships with less than honourable people and once they realised, moved on.
 
evand said:
What Jones, Bolt, Milne et al do isnt free speech, it is character assassination. Its crazy right wing opinion dressed as news.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/bomb...lodes-under-murdoch-press-20110829-1jipb.html
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, that Gina Rinehart puppet (bolt) and champion of the right wing bogans who is instrumental in questioning anything that may reduce our demand for coal, support the current government or whip up the masses into a frenzy about the 10's of thousands of "queue jumpers" storming the nth of Australia.
 
evand said:
Might be yawn, but its true.


Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism is a 2004 documentary film by filmmaker Robert Greenwald that criticises the Fox News Channel, and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, claiming that the channel is used to promote and advocate right-wing views. The film says this pervasive bias contradicts the channel's claim of being "Fair and Balanced", and argues that Fox News has been engaging in what amounts to consumer fraud.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfoxed

http://www.outfoxed.org/

And the unthinking right wing bogan electorate laps this stuff up. All bow down to News Ltd and its fair and balanced reporters and believe every single thing they say.

Is any more evidence required? Seriously!
Click to expand...

Fox News is cringeworthy and I can't watch it because it is so biased, it loses its credibility. But its good for a laugh

But I can't see how this has any relevance to Australian political coverage. There is nothing like it in either the electronic or printed media.
 
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 accountibility she would be a very different person and PM, and probably would not have missed what her boyfriend did ;).

That article breached on the bit that was not allowed to be mentioned by the courts.

The rest of the article was fine, and based on public knowledge that came out of the courts (just most people are unaware of the facts).

Julia would have been very concerned about the entire article not just the breeched bit. The facts don't make her look good regardless of not being found guilty of any wrongdoing.
 
weg said:
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:.


That article breached on the bit that was not allowed to be mentioned by the courts.

.
Click to expand...

Were they living together? That's the contentious bit, even Bolty says they weren't. And why would the courts not allow a newspaper to mention that she was living with this guy?

It sounds more logical to me that Milne got his facts wrong. Happy to be corrected though, if you have some more info.
 
weg said:
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 accountibility she would be a very different person and PM, and probably would not have missed what her boyfriend did ;).

That article breached on the bit that was not allowed to be mentioned by the courts.

The rest of the article was fine, and based on public knowledge that came out of the courts (just most people are unaware of the facts).

Julia would have been very concerned about the entire article not just the breeched bit. The facts don't make her look good regardless of not being found guilty of any wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Exactly weg,

Only the Prime Minister or someone very powerful, has access to an Editor's personal number and the power to withdraw articles with the threat of legal action.

Was anything slanderous written? Or was it the implication? If so....

Did Kevin Rudd threaten legal action when enquiries were made into his wife's buisness and the fact that he did not declare that her company had received $160,000 of Gvt money? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...dd-on-wifes-firm/story-e6frg6nf-1111116031416

My point is....she is getting touchy....the Skeleton's are coming out of HER closet...and she could have let this pass by shrugging it off and making the facts clear.

Would love to know what the fuss is all about.:rolleyes:

Regards JO
 
josko said:
Exactly weg,

Only the Prime Minister or someone very powerful, has access to an Editor's personal number and the power to withdraw articles with the threat of legal action.

Was anything slanderous written? Or was it the implication? If so....

Did Kevin Rudd threaten legal action when enquiries were made into his wife's buisness and the fact that he did not declare that her company had received $160,000 of Gvt money? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...dd-on-wifes-firm/story-e6frg6nf-1111116031416

My point is....she is getting touchy....the Skeleton's are coming out of HER closet...and she could have let this pass by shrugging it off and making the facts clear.

Would love to know what the fuss is all about.:rolleyes:

Regards JO
Click to expand...

Julia Gillard is in panic mode. Why else would you do something like this? But then again, her name is already mud so it's unlikely this article could do that much further damage
 
My point is....she is getting touchy....the Skeleton's are coming out of HER closet...and she could have let this pass by shrugging it off and making the facts clear.

Would love to know what the fuss is all about.
Click to expand...

Exactly ... something smelly going on
I get the impression this may turn into something much bigger.
 
dan c said:
Were they living together? That's the contentious bit, even Bolty says they weren't. And why would the courts not allow a newspaper to mention that she was living with this guy?

It sounds more logical to me that Milne got his facts wrong. Happy to be corrected though, if you have some more info.
Click to expand...

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 on what could be seen as slanderous in a court.

Most of the facts in that article have been reported before but due to the threat of litigation this time everything has been removed.
 
The mere fact that journalists are actually publishing this kind of material against our PM shows the real lack of respect that people have for her position.
 
Yes, Aaron it is a shame.

Things are getting nasty because people HAVE lost respect for this Government and those running it. They have stopped listening, just as Labor has.

Regards JO
 
Aaron_C said:
The mere fact that journalists are actually publishing this kind of material against our PM shows the real lack of respect that people have for her position.
Click to expand...

More to the point the lack of respect for the person in that position.

She has very little if any credibility left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

buzzlightyear
Gillard & Obama..Winning not whining
Replies
0
Views
1K
buzzlightyear
buzzlightyear
MarkB
Bill Shorten moves to distance Labor from union movement
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
datto
datto
MarkB
Should Australia Go Nuclear? (or at least move further down that path)
2 3
Replies
51
Views
6K
HotRod
HotRod
O
Silly in Delhi? Indian High-End Property Market Cost More Than Ours
Replies
0
Views
2K
one world
O
redwing
Battle for Bigger WA
Replies
2
Views
804
WinstonWolfe
W
Back
Top