Gillard and the AWU

By Legal Eagle

I started out as a tremendous fan of Gillard. I wanted her to win when Kevin Rudd attempted to overthrow her. (Sorry to my Queensland Labor friends, I have just never understood Rudd’s appeal. He’s the Pointy-Haired Boss from Dilbert to me.) But I have to say that the allegations surrounding Gillard in relation to the AWU do worry me.

Over the last couple of days, I’ve seen some of my more Labor-oriented friends decrying the allegations made against Gillard in The Australian($), with the suggestion that it’s a mud-flinging witch hunt and she’s being persecuted for her taste in men. I must say that if all women were held to account for Bad Boys we’ve dated in the past, I think many of us would be tainted. But to me, it’s not about who Gillard was in a relationship with. Yes, she was in a relationship with Bruce Wilson, against whom allegations of fraud have been made in relation to the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU). That’s immaterial. I don’t really care who she was living with or sleeping with in the past.

What I do care about is the legal work Gillard did for Wilson while working at Slater & Gordon as a salaried partner. So, I’ll start out with my position on the issue, which is this: on the evidence we have available, Gillard’s actions were not unethical in the legal sense, but her actions in failing to open a file on the firm’s system in relation to the work done on the formation of the AWU Workplace Reform Association showed poor judgement and poor office management.

The impetus for writing this post was a non-legal friend asking me, “So what does it matter if she didn’t open a file on the firm system?”

When you take on a matter at a law firm, you open a file. This means that you get a manila folder and typically you stick some colourful letter and number stickers on the side – maybe three identifying initials for your client and three identifying initials regarding the matter. What do I mean by initials? Let’s say your client is the AWU and you’re opening a file to form an association for them. You might put the initials AWU ASN on the spine and edge of the file (standing for AWU and association – I was going to say ASS for association, but that doesn’t look so good). It’s a quick way of identifying files easily.

Then you get a file number which is allocated to the file (these days most likely by a computer system, or perhaps in those days it was allocated manually by the finance department). Let’s pretend the file number is 046782. So then you stick the numbers 046782 on the spine and the other edge of the file so that no matter which way it’s filed on your shelf, people can see what it is. You then enter various details about the matter into the firm’s central database or records (who the client is, what the work is about broadly, who’s responsible for it, is it pro bono and so forth.) In the actual physical file (a.k.a. the labelled manila folder mentioned before) you put all the correspondence, bills, file notes and relevant documentation. If the file is on the system, it means that other people can see what you’re doing. Then, if you leave,  if you’re on holiday, if you’re hit by a bus, or if someone else needs to read it, they can easily find the file, read what’s happened so far, and get up to speed. I don’t know whether Slater & Gordon’s technology was up to it in the early 90s when Gillard’s particular matter arose, but certainly when I was in practice some ten years later, we had computer databases, such that if you had a file number you could also easily look at all work that had been done on the file via computer (eg, memos, pleadings, contracts etc) and look at the billings on the file.

According the timeline supplied by The Australian, what seems to have happened($) in this case is that Gillard was the lawyer for the AWU at Slater & Gordon from 1991 onwards. Around this time she also entered into a relationship with Bruce Wilson, an AWU official. In early to mid 1992, Gillard helped Bruce Wilson and another AWU union official, Ralph Blewitt to set up an entity known as the AWU Workplace Reform Association. The purpose of the association was stated to be the promotion of safety on construction sites. At that time, Gillard did not open a file on the firm system for this service, although evidently she did have some kind of physical file in her office. Wilson and Blewitt sought payments from various construction companies for the AWU Workplace Reform Association, purportedly to promote safety on site. Meanwhile the rest of the AWU was unaware that this Association existed or that it was raising hundreds of thousands of dollars. In her interview($) with then-Slater & Gordon partner Peter Gordon, Gillard said that she believed that the fund was in fact ‘a re-election fund, slush fund, whatever, which is the funds that the leadership team, into which the leadership team puts money so that they can finance their next election campaign’.

In 1993, Blewitt (through Wilson) purchased a house in Fitzroy with funds allegedly embezzled from the Association. Gillard was with Wilson when he bought the house at auction for Blewitt. In 1995, the AWU became aware of certain irregularities in its accounts and begin to pursue Wilson and Blewitt. It did not become aware of the existence of the AWU Workplace Reform Association until 1996. Wilson and Blewitt were made redundant by their branch in August 1995, against the wishes of some who felt that they had been fraudulent. Meanwhile, Slater & Gordon realised that the firm’s actions might be under scrutiny because of Gillard’s involvement with the creation of the AWU Workplace Reform Association, and started investigating. In September 1995, the firm questioned Gillard. A redacted version of the transcript($) of that questioning has since become available.

Imagine how the other partners at Slater & Gordon must have felt. One of its partners comes under question for certain legal services rendered to the AWU in relation to the AWU Workplace Reform Association, and allegations of fraud are made. Slater & Gordon go to find the relevant file…and the file is not on the firm system. Thus, they have no way of knowing what has happened on this file, where it is, or what its contents are. No wonder they called in Gillard for questioning. I imagine they must have been panicking.

From the redacted transcript of the questioning($), Peter Gordon, then a partner at Slater & Gordon, asks Gillard, ‘what are the circumstances in which we only got that [file regarding the incorporation of the Association] last week?’ Gillard readily admits that she did not open a file on the system saying, ‘…I must admit my recollection about the incorporation file was that I hadn’t opened a file on system and that I had had some papers and at some point I had given the papers to (name redacted).’ Gordon then asks Gillard why the file wasn’t opened on the system. Gillard responds as follows:

I don’t think there’s any great scientific explanation for that, I didn’t have an intention to charge on it, and from time to time I’ve done bits of work on files that I haven’t opened up where I’ve just done relatively small jobs for unions that I wasn’t intending to charge for. Ordinarily they would be kept on the union’s file.

We have a file for each union where we put little bits of free work or telephone attendances of advice we give, or they’re kept on my personal file JEG general. This, this was a more substantial job than that and really ought to have been opened on system, but I think, well, I don’t have a specific recollection of thinking to myself should I open it on system or shouldn’t I open it on system, but apparently I didn’t.

[my emphasis added]

Now, I should note that at this point there is no suggestion that Julia Gillard was involved in Wilson and Blewitt’s alleged fraud, or that she knew that the Fitzroy property was purchased from allegedly embezzled funds. Indeed, Slater & Gordon seems to have accepted that the failure to open a file was a genuine error on her part, and that she was not involved with and had no knowledge of the alleged fraud of Wilson and Blewitt. Nonetheless, in October 1995, Gillard left the firm and some months later she became an adviser to John Brumby, then Labor opposition leader in Victoria. There are conflicting accounts amongst Slater & Gordon’s partners and former partners on what their view of Gillard was when she left. One former firm partner, Nick Styant-Browne, now living in the United States, has alleged that the firm took a “very serious view” of Ms Gillard’s conduct, while the present managing director of Slater & Gordon has denied this, and has criticised Styant-Browne. Meanwhile, Peter Gordon (who now works with another firm) has released a statement in which he says, ‘I believed at the time that there was no explicit or indirect evidence that she [Gillard] was involved in any wrongdoing and that remains my view today.’ Nonetheless, he concedes that the relationship between the firm and the two industrial relations partners (Gillard and Bernard Murphy) was no longer a happy one, saying:

It is relevant to understand that these events occurred in the immediate aftermath of the Harris/Smith case, which had placed relations between the industrial department and the rest of the partners under great strain and damaged relationships. Ms Gillard’s previous public statement that after these events “working there wasn’t as much fun, to be honest” can hardly be doubted in the circumstances. Likewise, it is true that the balance of the partnership were less than thrilled with how our relations with Bernard Murphy and Julia Gillard had deteriorated. It was a partnership falling out and like many of them, individuals will have their own take on what happened, especially seventeen years later.

I have to say that if I had been a partner of the firm, it is likely that I would have been deeply disappointed with Gillard’s conduct because it shows very poor office management which may adversely affect the reputation of the firm. It is essential to the proper running of a firm that files are kept in a manner which allows other people at the firm to access them easily if needed, particularly if problems arise with a file. That’s not to say that mistakes don’t occur from time to time. I know I made some when I was in practice. That being said, I never failed to open a proper file – including when a partner asked me to do work on his wife’s personal matters. Maybe I’m just neurotic, but I like to cover my back by keeping proper records of things.

No, there’s nothing in the information we have which suggests that Julia Gillard has been in any way been unethical or fraudulent or anything of the like, and there’s nothing to suggest that she should stand down as Prime Minister (contrary to the calls from some of my friends on the Right). But to me, this whole thing underscores a certain lack of judgement on Gillard’s part which is deeply disappointing.

50 Comments

  1. kvd
    Posted August 24, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    The rest of us will just become increasingly depressed over the inability of politicians or the media to rationally discuss things that actually affect the future of this country.

    Couldn’t agree more. But you do my fellow rusted on conservatives a great disservice. For instance, we have graciously never yet once mentioned that she is Welsh. Just beware that this will come to the fore if we can but get to the nub of this matter 😉

  2. Posted August 24, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    The rest of us will just become increasingly depressed over the inability of politicians or the media to rationally discuss things that actually affect the future of this country.

    This is a huge problem. It is like advertising. It doesn’t have to be true, it just has to tug at your guts, which makes for bad analysis. Politicians no longer sell ideas, they sell an image, a photoshopped snip cut and tuck image of themselves. The media has given up on selling complex ideas in an increasingly complex world. Here and there, amongst the increasing ruin of political rhetoric, are there any signs of a return to deep and relevant political rhetoric? Or is it going to increasingly become the politics of Jersey Shore ilk? Be afraid, be very afraid.

  3. juggernaut
    Posted August 25, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Julia Gillard’s conduct in relation to this entire episode is under scrutiny. As a novice regarding the law and how legal firms operate I would be most interested to find other lawyers who have become romantically involved with dubious people and set up associations for them which were subsequently used to, amongst other things embezzle funds to purchase property/renovate properties in which your firm carried out conveyancing and provided finance without opening a file or involving other partners who then record an examination as the senior team breaks apart. ie does this sort of thing happen often, rarely or never and what type of character might this happen to?

  4. Posted August 25, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    LE @41, that is a great piece (disclosure: Linda Haller also taught me professional ethics). And she’s right – I’m afraid we in the legal profession are going to have to pull up our collective socks again.

  5. kvd
    Posted August 25, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    amongst other things embezzle funds to ….
    renovate properties
    carried out conveyancing
    provided finance

    Not sure any of that’s been established, so I’d be a little careful.

    On the other hand, every single instance of ‘corporate infidelity’ would probably have involved a lawyer at the initial, setting up, stage – so that’s sort of like holding General Motors Holden responsible for road fatalities.

  6. Posted August 26, 2012 at 1:14 am | Permalink

    There’s gotta be some serious disconnect in play.
    How else to explain the blithe talk of “performing for free small scale legal work for union officials”?
    Not to mention the blithe references to “slush funds”.
    O-M-G

  7. kvd
    Posted August 26, 2012 at 3:35 am | Permalink

    Thanks [email protected] I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the conduct of the law firm seems unexceptional.

  8. Barry
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    LE. In your article you say Ms Gillard was the S&G’s lawyer handling the AWU account for S&G. She was asked by her boyfriend (Wilson) to provide advice on setting up an assoc and advise on setting up bank accounts to handle incoming monies.
    As the nominated S&G lawyer to handle the AWU business would she not have an obligation to the “parent client” the fee paying client to record the work she did for Wilson in at least the AWU file? I can buy the fact (maybe not understand why) there was no file created for Wilson because the work she did was pro bona or free or no charge. To not do so makes it look as if there was something to hide from the “parent and fee paying client” If as there was nothing to hide why would it not be on the AWU file.

  9. Colin
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    One major concern I have in this affair is the contrast between Gillard’s claim of a slush fund and the application to the Corporate affairs office in WA. Surely, if she truly believed the association was to be set up as an élection fund rather than for ‘training and work related issues’then how can she have prepared the documents for the WA Coroporate Affairs office without concerns over the Association’s legality?

    Can you clarify this for me SKEPTICLAWYER?

  10. Barry
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for taking the time to answer my question,
    So there was no legal obligation on her behalf to keep S&G’s fee paying client (AWU) aware of what a non fee paying employee of the AWU was up to with regard to a new assoc in AWU’s name and the funds connected to that assoc. With regard to Mr Gordons supposed response to her answers during the interview it reminds me that there is an old saying one uses you when you know/suspect someone is lying or taking the mickey out of you, it is, “do you think I fell off the last load of turnips” It means you must think I/we are dimwits and gullible. Obviously Ms Gillard and Mr Gordon think the Australian public are turnips.

  11. Barry
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Based on Ms Gillards work history it is reassuring that our Govt will be governing us to the extent to which they are legally obliged to. As having ethics and morals are not a legal requirement to govern I guess there is no need for them to bother having them.

  12. Yobbo
    Posted August 27, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

    I started out as a tremendous fan of Gillard

    Why? What had she ever done in her entire life that was commendable?

    Fired from the only private sector job she ever had. Spent her youth supporting the communists and her adult life leaching off the government.

    What was it that made you a fan?

  13. Barry
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 1:19 am | Permalink

    LE, …..I am aware I cannot win my argument but.as a former mine worker and AWU member in the 60’s and 70’s I am also well aware of the “goings on” within unions and the type of people who ran them. Many of our era were happy when the “silver bodgie” came along and brought some class to the union movement and Labor party and with the help of Keating enlightened the Labor movement and modernised our economy. Sadly, it looks like as soon as the silver bodgie left the scene those good old union boys and girls went straight back to their old habits., or more likely became more brazen in them. But, you are right, we can vote the dodgy politician and/or Govt out of office. Also, at this stage in most cases, it is now not compulsory to belong to a union. That may change if the current Govt has its way. But, we can never escape lawyers, both parties are choc a bloc with them but more concerning is that in many parts of Australia we are legally bound to use lawyers for all sorts of reasons such as when one purchases a home. So maybe a new Govt will not only have a RC into unions but they will also take a peek a boo at the legal fraternity and make it “law” that they operate with, and held accountable to both legal ethics and MORAL ETHICS. Now wouldn’t that have many in the legal profession ‘squealing like cut pigs’. We know it is important to keep Church and State separate but as the atheists tell us, you don’t have to be a believer to have morals. So lets not separate the State, Lawyers and morals.

  14. Barry
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 6:10 am | Permalink

    Le……. I was not actually referring to your good self re the argument, rather I realise my argument has no leg to stand on in law. In Qld a lawyer must do the conveyancing. I know in Perth a conveyancer has been able to it since at least since the 60’s, probably longer.

  15. Lurker
    Posted October 22, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Have you thought about updating/writing a new article in reference to all the new information that has come to light recently and especially in regards to a Specific Power of Attorney that Ms Gillard created.

    If you need to acquaint yourself with this new information, then I’d suggest a good reading of this site: http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/

  16. b parker
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Good article 🙂

    Is it possible to update now there’s more information on the record?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvKSMdzQgXU

    And I particularly like the message here:
    http://larvatusprodeo.net/archives/2010/05/22/guest-post-by-mr-denmore-the-failed-estate-ii-gareths-gaffe/

  17. Sean McHugh
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    It doesn’t seem plausible that the failure to open a file was just sloppiness. The whole plan for Wilson relied on secrecy. Slater and Gordon (aside from Gillard) could not know and neither could their client, the AWU. Wilson would need to be confident beforehand that Gillard would disclose it to no one.

  18. Sean McHugh
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    Blewitt says he was not in Melbourne on the 4th of February to sign the POA in front of Gillard. If he can prove that, what then?

  19. b parker
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    I’m starting to worry these stories are gaining traction

    http://www.afr.com/p/national/what_gillard_knew_about_the_slush_JbGcILLo9O59yt3QGFT68H

    The PM can just out them all by making a statement in the Parliament surely?

  20. Sean McHugh
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    ‘b parker’ said:

    And I particularly like the message here

    .

    A link to a blind search! What “message”? What relevance?

  21. Sean McHugh
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    Legal Eagle said here:

    there is no legal obligation on Gillard to create a file on the firm system, and nor is it a breach of an ethical obligation in the legal sense to fail to do so.

    It is, however, unusual and fits well within a consistent pattern of secrecy.

  22. Sean McHugh
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    Apologies for not including this question in the last submission. Legal Eagle said here:

    there is no legal obligation on Gillard to create a file on the firm system, and nor is it a breach of an ethical obligation in the legal sense to fail to do so.

  23. Sean McHugh
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    Apologies for not including this question in the last submission. Legal Eagle said here.

    there is no legal obligation on Gillard to create a file on the firm system, and nor is it a breach of an ethical obligation in the legal sense to fail to do so.

    So why did Slater and Gordon have a taped interview with partner Gillard? Surely that is heavy stuff. Why did Gillard then leave S&G never to work in law again – if she did nothing wrong and nothing unethical?

  24. Sean McHugh
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    Thank you L.E. for taking the time to respond.

    Legal Eagle said:

    I said [to] this friend, “I can’t believe Gillard didn’t open a file!” and her comment was, “Oh I wouldn’t read anything into that, half the time we don’t formally open a file for freebies to major clients either.”

    But as I previously raised in another comment, Wilson could not just hope that invisibility might be the case. He would’ve needed to be confident that Gillard wouldn’t divulge the existence if this fund to the AWU (her client and their supposed fund) or even to her S&G partners, lest they unwittingly spilled the beans to the AWU. On this basis alone, the secrecy seems unlikely to have been accidental.

  25. Sean McHugh
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Legal Eagle responded @ 84:

    [S]he [Gillard] did nothing which would get her in trouble with the laws governing legal ethics.

    That might be so from a legal perspective but I have difficulty accommodating your previous rendering. This appears at the end of your original article and in the two appended ‘Trackbacks’:

    No, there’s nothing in the information we have which suggests that Julia Gillard has been in any way been unethical or fraudulent or anything of the like, and there’s nothing to suggest that she should stand down as Prime Minister

    I think that that unduly denies the suggestiveness of the circumstances. There is a lot of evidence mounting against her and very little for her. Her aversion to answering questions and saying that she has answered questions, that she hasn’t, adds to one’s suspicions. It’s all a bad look, and appearance and suggestion don’t live far from each other.

    Do I think she will face legal charges? No I don’t, not even if more damaging evidence emerges.

    As for whether Gillard should resign, I am not going to advocate that at this stage. But what if it had been Abbott in this position? Imagine the feeding frenzy by media and academics then.

    Going back to your appraisal, that there is no evidence that Gillard did not unethical in not formerly opening a file (and keeping it secret) what is your take on this:

    United Nations and the Rule of Law:

    “For the United Nations, the rule of law refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, . . . . . avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.”

    The embolding is mine. Are the ethics of Australian law different to that?

  26. Lurker
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    What gets me is that if Gillard was as innocent, young and naive as she has made herself out to be, then why, when discovering Wilson’s activities with the Association, did she not scream bloody murder – immediately notify S&G (who should have instantly notified their clients the AWU) and then all the aggrieved parties should have gone to the authorities (police etc). So the resultant silence and whatever effectively seems to be a cover-up is not a good look, especially with the non-answers and deflections. If she was innocent then she needs to move heaven and earth to prove her innocence, if she is guilty, then she needs to accept the consequences. It is a bad look for the country to have people seen to be above the law.

  27. kvd
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Do I think she will face legal charges? No I don’t

    and

    As for whether Gillard should resign, I am not going to advocate that at this stage

    So…. what is this about?

    Are the ethics of Australian law different to that?

    Thanks for the laugh; quoting the United Nations on “avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency”. Too funny!

    BTW, I’ve heard a nasty rumour that she’s Welsh! Looking forward to Ms Bishop demanding the release of her official birth certificate to nail her on that as well.

    Lurker: she needs to move heaven and earth to prove her innocence – normally it is the other way round in law: it is impossible to prove innocence – as a wise old Roman once was alleged to have said.

  28. Lurker
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    It might be the other way round in law – however if my good name was being disputed then I’d be raising merry hell to prove otherwise, using every bit of available evidence to that fact. Which brings up another point, if she is being slandered, then why hasn’t she served a defamation writ. She was a lawyer, surely she’d use the law to prove her innocence.

  29. kvd
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    [email protected] look, I’m a conservative leaning voter, and all I can see in this is yet another embarrassing, snide, baseless, pointless attack by people who I should be aligned with. Seriously, do you think ‘our side’ (said with gritted teeth) is in any way advanced by the rehashing of decades old imputations upon the expertise and judgement of a newby lawyer who had a dodgy boyfriend?

    Has Ms Gillard done nothing more, nothing worse, than this? Really, she must be laughing her socks off, if that’s the best Her Maj’s loyal opposition can produce at this point.

    Too many words – as usual. Simply put, it is puerile, pointless, and embarrassing for all concerned.

  30. kvd
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    UN aspirational statement: “ho hum”. (and if you don’t believe me look up the definition of ‘aspiration’: 1. Expulsion of breath in speech.)

    Somewhere above somebody linked to an AFR article in which it was reported that Ms Bishop was unsuccessful in seeking to table a copy of a cheque drawn on this ‘slush fund’ and questioning Ms Gillard’s complete lack of knowledge of the source of said funds. Problem is, the cheque was deposited in the Perth account of her law firm, for a conveyancing matter, being handled by a different department within her Melbourne office.

    Hands up how many lawyers carefully investigate the source of all (any?) funds being deposited in their trust accounts? Someone… anyone?

    As I said. Embarrassing.

  31. Sean McHugh
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    Quoting me, kvd said @ 88:

    Do I think she will face legal charges? No I don’t

    and

    As for whether Gillard should resign, I am not going to advocate that at this stage

    So…. what is this about?

    Are the ethics of Australian law different to that?

    The circling of the wagons, the Sergeant Schultz media, Gillard’s teflon coating. If there was someone else that didn’t get it, please let me know.

    Thanks for the laugh; quoting the United Nations on “avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency”. Too funny!

    OK, closer to home then:

    There can be a lack of public accountability and the professional associations have the power to work in the interests of members rather than the interests of the public at large. To ensure the broader public interest is being served independence of the legal profession must be balanced with transparency and accountability.

    Kvd:

    BTW, I’ve heard a nasty rumour that she’s Welsh! Looking forward to Ms Bishop demanding the release of her official birth certificate to nail her on that as well.

    You know, I heard that very worrying apparently rumour too. In fact, I only saw it today, here. Hey, that’s you again!! Kvd, your protection of Gillard goes beyond intense; it extends into the bizarre.

  32. kvd
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    [email protected] I’m not particularly concerned about how she ‘held herself out’ at that age. Fact is, myself included, people at that stage of life are absolute masters of the universe, and also know where the best coffee is to be had; by their paras of course.

    [email protected] Mate. What is your point? You have a great big pink block of text staring at you, asking you to expand upon 1) if you think she should face legal charges (“not”), and 2) should she resign (“not advocating this”) – and I simply asked “what is this about?”

    And your detailed, thoughtful, response is …….

    As for the Welsh, well, yes I have an interest. With a Cornish mother I have a deep regard for all survivors of the continuing English depradations. Balanced of course by a fair admiration of English cricket skills. (But if you feel that is bizarre, imagine my distaste for references to ‘the Kenyan’ elsewhere)

    Sean, you need to either lighten up, or get real, because presently you are making ‘my side’ of politics into a joke, and I guess I’m just laughing at (not with) you.

  33. kvd
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    The embolding is mine

    Meant to say earlier. Funniest thing I’ve read for yonks.

  34. Sean McHugh
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    kvd said @ 90:

    [email protected] look, I’m a conservative leaning voter

    Yeah, and I’m Julia’s hairdresser. From what I see from here and from Googling elsewhere, and despite your curious claims to conservatism, is that you will go out of your way to defend Gillard and her government and leftist ideals while taking cheap swipes at Abbott and the Coalition. Even in your reply to Lurker, from the post I am quoting, you remark (embolding mine):

    Really, she must be laughing her socks off, if that’s the best Her Maj’s loyal opposition can produce at this point

    Laughing? Perhaps in your Julia dreams.

    You even took an irrelevant swipe, at the Opposition in your reply to me, with this nonsense:

    BTW, I’ve heard a nasty rumour that she’s Welsh! Looking forward to Ms Bishop demanding the release of her official birth certificate to nail her on that as well.

    A quick search found these comments from you:

    This, this, this, this, this and this.

    I am confident that I could find many more without any weeding. You seem very consistent.

    Getting back to Julie Bishop’s probe in Parliament. The Opposition looked like it was going to let the matter go. That was until your Julia came out with that misogyny speech. She wanted to make it big-time personal, “Game on!”. Two days later came the AWU probe in parliament. It must have frustrated the left that they (and you) couldn’t shriek, ‘Misogynist!!’ with a woman questioning Gillard – though they did make a failed attempt at directing their fury at Abbott (the archetypical ‘misogynist’ – note 1). There is no way they wouldn’t give it some sort of shot.

    1. Refer to the new Macquarie Dictionary when it comes out

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*