.. but ignorance ...
.. is no excuse ...
.. under just law
Thesis/Subtitle: 'weasel words' are a way of avoiding some (uncomfortable) truth - but IF it ain't 100% the truth THEN it's a lie.
Corollary 1: No worthwhile project needs a 'lie-screen.'
Corollary 2: Secrecy may be a requirement when justice is being sought against some criminal circumstance, but when secrecy is part of some crime that's conspiracy.
Disclosure: This is an anti-Aus-Liberal diatribe, but given the multi-dimensional similarities, under 'comparable circumstances' it could equally apply to Aus-Labor. Far too often (once would be one too many), our so-called 'leaders' more resemble incompetent, *criminal* children than responsible adults. No wonder Aus continually seems to be going down the tubes (= tor-let.)
Trigger article 1:
Slipper accuser Ashby was secretly helping rival
May 5, 2012
«Revelations of Mr Ashby's close contact with LNP members comes after a week in which the Liberal powerbroker Christopher Pyne was forced to alter his recollection three times over his dealings with Mr Ashby.
Mr Pyne has now conceded he may have sought the contact details of Mr Ashby after a late night drinking session in the Speaker's office.
Three days earlier, he said he had no reason to contact the staff member, and that he could not remember if he had.»
Comment: "alter his recollection three times" = confirming that he lied three times.
Trigger article 2:
Brough denies he lied on Ashby
May 6, 2012
«Mr Brough was quoted in The Sunday Mail last weekend dismissing as "nonsense" any suggestion he knew of James Ashby's court documents before they were lodged.
He reportedly said he knew Mr Ashby as a local party member but had no previous knowledge of his civil suit.
But Mr Brough yesterday confirmed he had met Mr Ashby three times and sought legal advice on his behalf. Mr Ashby went to him for advice on how to deal with the allegations of sexual harassment and misuse of travel entitlements, he said, at the urging of Liberal National Party of Queensland member Val Bradford.»
Comment: "no previous knowledge of his civil suit" after "he had met Mr Ashby three times" - no further questions, m’lud.
Trigger article 3:
Abbott denies 'formal complaint' made over Slipper
Posted April 23, 2012 21:59:39
«Mr Abbott has also dismissed any notion that the Coalition helped Mr Ashby prepare his case.
"I had no specific knowledge of this until I read the newspapers on Saturday morning and to the best of my knowledge, no-one in the Coalition had specific knowledge of this until they read the newspapers," he said.»
Comment 1: Weasel words; "no specific knowledge," "to the best of my knowledge" and "no-one in the Coalition had specific knowledge."
Comment 2: As far as denialists go, is Abbott plausible?
Comment 3: What of Abbott's no 'formal complaint?' Well, this:
«Mr Ashby's documents allege that Mr Nutt was told of the allegations "in or around mid-2003".
It says a former Slipper staffer, Megan Hobson, had seen a video in which Mr Slipper was observed to behave inappropriately but that Mr Nutt told her to "forget all about it".»
Comment 4: The "behave inappropriately" was of the homosexual variety, "seen [in] a video" "in or around mid-2003". Yet Slipper was allowed to remain selected by the LNP and was subsequently re-elected - thrice.
Musing: Some people think this is 'all good fun,' and that anything that can be, will be used, to bring Gillard&govt down. The corrupt&venal MSM seem all too ready to 'kick someone already down' but worse - they collaborate in staging the initial fall. Murdoch, of course, is the absolute worst, but it is utterly outrageous not to mention disgraceful that the AusBC allows itself to go pro-Liberal partisan. A gaoling offence, IMHO - if not to be hung as traitors.
The grounds for wishing to 'ditch the witch,' to bring Gillard&govt down are ostensibly that Labor is determined to ruin the economy to fatten union-cats = socialism = next-best to communism - citing mining-tax (MRRT = a fairer share for we the people) and CO2-tax (trying (however (in)effectively) to save our once jewel-like planet's comfortable-life supprting ecosphere), plus the usual vilifying by lying shock-jocks. Over time it all works as planned; the people crumble to the psychologically constructed propaganda.
But whatever it is, it ain't (proper) democracy; a deceived electorate cannot make informed decisions. As if that wasn't enough, numbering candidates on a ballot once every 3-4 years is totally risible as a method of determining we, the people's wishes. No proper people-sovereignty = illegitimate representation = no mandate for laws, no right to tax, no right to fight wars - of any sort (except defensive; doesn't happen) and especially no right to go off murdering-for-spoil, as US+UK+Aus in Afghanistan, Iraq & (F+UK/NATO/US) in Libya, next Syria with Iran in planning - again. Then there's the Nakba; those aiding crime make themselves into accessories, those who tolerate crime = accomplices, those arguing support = apologists, all = guilty.
"Order! The 'honourable' member will resume his seat!" (About 7,960 results)
PS If it wasn't all so boringly repetitive. I first experienced it against Whitlam, and the poison still clings in many minds (again, one would be one too many). People don't seem to learn, but some must, and many would be too clever to fall for lying propaganda in the first place. Q: Where are the truly clever, truly honourable ones, those who could rescue us from these dire circumstances?
^ Update, 14:51; PPS Two new-ish items:
Hockey calls for silence on Slipper allegations
May 6, 2012 - 11:18AM
«Senior coalition frontbencher Joe Hockey has called for an end to the public commentary over the sexual harassment accusations made against Speaker Peter Slipper.»
Comment: Note the time; 11:18AM.
Labor accused of Slipper staffer smear campaign
Posted May 06, 2012 21:06:34 | Updated May 06, 2012 21:09:05
«Opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey says the Labor party is smearing the staffer who accused embattled Speaker Peter Slipper of sexual harassment.»
Comment 1: One might hardly credit that both articles were based on the same source/input (AusBC's Insiders), and that the AusBC item was posted 'only' about 10hrs later than theage's (so much for 'AusBC news').
Comment 2: I hardly need to point out, the difference in 'slant?'
Comment 3: In case you hadn't noticed, there's a moral aspect: In order to desire 'plausible deniability,' one first needs something to deny.
Q: What's Abbott's excuse? (Tip: Recall that the 'captain' is 'responsible' for the entire shebang.)
 weasel word n. (usu. in pl.) word that is intentionally ambiguous or misleading. [POD]
 lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. -v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [ibid.]
 conspiracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire]
conspiracy of silence n. agreement to say nothing.
conspirator n. person who takes part in a conspiracy. conspiratorial adj. [ibid.]
adjective able to be denied: the government did agree to play a limited and deniable role in the rebellion.
[The NEW OXFORD Dictionary OF ENGLISH]
no 'specific' knowledge
leads to a scenario of
.. but ignorance ...