Interesting that Bruce Wilson has now broken his silence to defend Julia Gillard. Her supporters are very happy about this, of course. But you've gotta wonder, if she had nothing to do with the AWU fraud then why didn't he do this before? If he had he may well have nipped the issue in the bud and saved her the trouble she's currently experiencing.
It's pretty funny that people like Tony Burke are saying Wilson's is the last word and the issue is officially over. Ha! The story's just getting started, more like ... Wilson was the alleged mastermind behind the fraud. Why would you believe him?
Mr Wilson also rounded on the union bagman Ralph Blewitt, attacking his former mate as a "very risky" person for Ms Gillard's critics to rely on.
"Relying on Ralph to be your star witness is a very, very risky strategy," Mr Wilson said. "It's not one I would be prepared to take."
Talk about the pot and the kettle.
But there's a difference between the two: Apart from the fact that Blewitt was clearly Wilson's underling, Blewitt has made his admissions to the coppers under penalty of perjury. Sure, he could be lying. But he's risking a helluva lot more than Wilson is.
In any case, you don't have to believe either of them. There's enough stuff in the documents to make any curious and rational person suspicious of Gillard's involvement in the fraud.
And we do know that she was very close to these two alleged crooks for a long time. It beggars belief that she didn't have the slightest clue what was going on.
Her "young and naive" defence is comical. And it's so sexist. It relies heavily on the twin stereotypes of diabolically evil, scheming men and saintly, trusting women. The excuse would be pathetic if it came from any woman. But the fact that a leftie feminist is using it makes it too tragic for words. I mean, doesn't your typical leftie feminist pride herself on not being anyone's fool -- least of all a man's? Just shows how hollow that whole ideology is. (Actually, it's a bigger fraud than the one perpetrated on the AWU when you think about it!)
There is a quantum leap in difference between the un-sworn off the cuff remark by someone like Wilson and, if it has been made in writing, a statement from Blewitt. Wilson's remarks carry no greater penalty than embarrassment for he truly could not feel shame. A signed statement by Blewitt has a jurat on the end of it in reference to being liable to the penalty for perjury if it is shown to be false. Perjury usually attracts a period of time at "Her Majesty's Pleasure". Gillard continues to bring shame on the office of Prime Minister. To paraphrase Henry II - "Who will rid us of this turbulent woman"?ReplyDelete
If she hangs on until the next election, I'm pretty sure that we'll be getting rid of her.Delete
But the way things are going with this AWU scandal, there must be many in the party itself who want to get rid of her and put Rudd, or maybe someone else, in her place.
"I mean, doesn't your typical leftie feminist pride herself on not being anyone's fool -- least of all a man's? Just shows how hollow that whole ideology is."ReplyDelete
Excellent Matt and I agree with you 100%. You've said it all!
David: I'm pleased that you mentioned the jurat because that's so important and I notice that the media got things very mixed up tonight.
Henry II - "Who will rid us of this turbulent woman"? I will use that quote in Twitter, if you don't mind. I love it!
Sharon - on behalf of Henry II [who I am sure won't object] please feel free to use his modified plea. I am not sure where you will find the equivalents of Sir Reginald Fitz Urse, Sir William De Tracey, Sir Hugh de Morville and Sir Richard Le Breton who took care of Henry's problem.Delete
No I severely doubt you will find the required amount of "SIRS". To remain sane at the moment with the over exposure to her shrieking rants and smirks on television and radio (and the fawning press), I put her "face plant" on repeat" on YouTube. It is a guilty pleasure and helps me remain calm.Delete