Given the way this is headed, the Victorian and now the WA Police will determine if he is to believed or not. After watching Michael Smith’s address to the Australian Taxpayers Alliance I am tending to believe that Blewitt is speaking the absolute truth. Either that or his headed for a long period in jail for perjury.
Ahh but he received an undertaking not to be prosecuted from the fuzz. I see that Gillards former boyfriend has not said that she was not involved. I’ll bet everyone will say that Blewitt (a recognised crook even by his sister) is telling the truth, and the boyfriends isn’t.
And, the Vic police don’t have any jurisdiction over events occurring in Western Australia.
Finally, I still want to know who’s paying for the sludge mongers and the legal representations — I’ll wager it’s not Blewitt!
Thanks for that. Have listened, and again, it’s hearsay evidence. He said, they said, etc etc. If there was tangible proof of wrongdoing why haven’t the police acted?
At the moment it is purely and simply character assignation by smear and innuendo.
I think it’s only a matter of time that the police will act. Given the intense media speculation, the goings on in Parliament, the public statements being made by those honourable and not so honourable and the existence of a certain amount of documentary evidence, they will be compelled to act, at least in respect of Bruce Wilson who has now more or less confessed to the fraud. One also questions why Julia Gillard took such extraordinary actions in personally trying to shut down this issue which led to the sackings of Michael Smith and Glen Milne, two highly regarded and ethical journalists. In the ordinary course.of events, one would only intervene if you had something to hide. Why didn’t she standby by not intervening and then take out a defamation action. I think the reasons are fairly obvious. The other point relating to this is the fact that Gillard will not respond to questions regarding her alleged involvement in the AWU scandal in Parliament. And then there’s the matter of the statutory declaration where Gillard’s responses have been evasive even outside of Parliament. Just on this one alone, apart from the lying aspect, a criminal act has occurred if proven. On the balance of probabilities based on what we read or hear in the media including Parliament, I’m now convinced Gillard was knowingly involved and that more persons of interest and documentary evidence will be forthcoming to prove this.
Well, time will tell. I’m still of the opinion that this is a sleaze and smear campaign driven largely by the NO Coalition, as is the Ashby/Slipper business. The initial hope was that it would bring down the government, the hope now is that it will so damage the government that they will lose the next election. Given that the consensus seems that people are getting tired of the negativity and the sleaze being dragged up the risk is that the voters will swing the government’s way. Unless the NO Coalition can present something provable/tangible then I suspect that this strategy will fail them. One wonders why Bishop is solely involved in this. Have the other attached dogs and Phoney realised the risks involved and are letting Bishop take the fall. Given the venality of today’s politicians, anything is possible.
I’d love to know where all the money is coming from to pay these people and the legal advice (it’s a bit beyond pro bono).
Thanks for your thoughts. Time will definitely tell as the current debacle can’t continue indefinitely. However if Gillard would simply answer the questions being put to her during Parliamentary session,a lot of the rationale behind the Opposition’s line of questioning in Question Time will be watered down. The fact that Gillard refuses to respond to these questions in the House is significant and undoubtably casts suspicion over the veracity and honesty of the answers given outside Parliament. Personally I’m of the opinion that Gillard knew what was going on, her actions at Slater and Gordon proffer more support for this than the contrary. The various commentators on the scandal who were around at the time ( with the exception of Bruce Wilson ) tend to support this proposition.
What’s needed now is a new Federal election where the Australian electors decide who should be governing this Country. No Party has a mandate at the present time with major new laws being made at the whim of a few Independents (with back room deals being their guiding light ). I personally, when making a promise will invariably honour that promise and to do otherwise would be a dishonest act from my point of view. Gillard lost faith with the majority of the Australian public when she ( in effect ) lied regarding the introduction of the carbon tax and it is this which ultimately is the Achilles heel ( in my opinion ).
She probably has answered questions to the best of her ability. Were I in a position of having to answer questions about a business arrangement that I had created 17 plus years ago I’d be somewhat cautious about my answers to questions that would condemn me as dishonest if my answer was found to be incorrect according to documentation that I wasn’t privy to at the time of making the response (God what a long sentence).
In such circumstances it’s very easy for the questioners to make the accusation that you are trying to hide something. The alternative answer ‘I can’t recall’ raises the same accusation.
I defy anybody to say that they have a crystal clear recall of things that they did 5 years ago, let along 17 plus!
Quite obviously the way in which we perceive this issue is influenced by our political persuasions to a fair degree, and that’s only natural. It would be quite apparent which way I tend to lean and in fact have all my life whether rightly or wrongly. Notwithstanding this, I am now firmly of the opinion that I stand on the right side of history given the latest relevations regarding documented evidence of Gillard’s involvement in the setting up of the slush fund. It appears to me based on this that Gillard deceived the WA Authorities and has then lied by her denial of the degree of her involvement. I have read somewhere this morning that Gillard’s para legal when working for Slater and Gordon has revealed in a fraud squad interview was aware that the purpose of creating the new incorporated body under the auspices of the AWU was to establish a slush fund, contrary to the stated objectives in the application. I still come back to the fact that Gillard is not responding to questions in Parliament and that documents are not being allowed to be tabled in the House. This smacks at obstructionism, concealment, subtifuse, denial, dishonesty, abuse of parliamentary process and the list goes on. In my opinion the fuse attached to Gillard is well alight and is liable to go off at anytime. The Labor caucus can only withstand so much and it seems that it’s support for Gillard and all the problems and baggage that come with her have become overbearing.
Have a nice day, Kym