I am not a journo, not an academic, nor an expert on Government,
but even a punter with a basic level of high school education can
call bullshit on this Courier Mail report today by Peter
Hall,· February 07, 2013 “LNP candidate Mal Brough sets up his
office just metres from the shop front of current member for
Fisher Peter Slipper”. Of course I could be reading
this wrong, will let you, other punters decide?
Yes the news that Mr Brough has set up shop next to Mr Slipper is
interesting in a creepy sort of way, but what annoys me is the
propagation of media massaged fallacy that this ‘report’ is
serving the punter reading. The concept that
Mr Brough is promoting in relation to Ashby scandal
“There is nothing to see here, move
on...” In general the
Courier Mail is one of the better papers when it comes to facts,
figures & general informing of the public, hence the
disappointment.
2nd sentence – “Mr Brough won
preselection...” Hmm let’s have a bit of
background in regard to the branch stacking claims against Mr
Brough? Though I can let this one slide as
obviously there may not have been space in the article.
6th sentence – “We are already starting to help
people who say they can't get through to him (Mr Slipper), or
don't wish to.”
Really? Just how is Mr Brough helping
people? Currently Mal Brough is just a punter
that is putting his hand up saying ‘pick me, pick me’ in
September? He is not an elected official, he
is not in Government... Hell for all I know
maybe he is giving counselling as he has no official capacity to
do anything else?
10th sentence – “Mr Brough was linked to this when
the Gillard Government accused him of encouraging Slipper staff
to leak diaries.” (referring to James
Ashby drama). Two points of
order on this one...
A. Mr Brough was not linked to this scandal by the Gillard
Government, he was linked to this scandal by the Federal Court of
Australia, Justice Rares. You may like to
familiarise yourself with the judgement “Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia (No 4)
[2012] FCA 1411”. In fact Mr Brough is
referred to 113 times in this judgment.
My second point of order here is in relation to ‘leak
diaries’. Not sure about you, but if I
‘encourage’ a staff member in a competitors business to STEAL
& COPY pages of my competitors diary to give to me to gain an
advantage, that is actually THEFT and pretty sure I would be in
serious doggy doo should I be caught, as is the case here?
Much to my disappointment the journalist has not asked any
pertinent questions of Mr Brough in regard to his involvement in
this scandal. I do not know of this
journalist, though considering how hard it has been for others of
his profession to actually get Mr Brough to answer his phone,
this is such a wasted opportunity. See graphic
above, (larger version here), in fact more than just the
journo’s on this graphic have tried to contact
Mr Brough, even though he was very very cute in an interview with
the Sunshine Coast Daily where he
suggested no-one had phoned him? Mr Hall obviously missed
the opportunity for a 'scoop' here, alternatively it begs the
question, was not asking anything serious about Ashby a condition
of the interview?
I would suggest that voters in Fisher and others concerned with
the abuse of court processes and democracy actually visit the
below for full information in regard to Mr Brough’s involvement
in the Ashby scandal:
Independent Australia where David Donovan
& Vince O’Grady (plus others) have spent hundreds of hours on
this scandal linked to Mr Brough. Interesting note is that
Mr O'Grady has also referred this matter to the Queensland
Police...
Australians For Honest Politics have
also written extensively about this case led by the intrepid Ms
Margo Kingston.
There may also be other online media who have reported on this
scandal, though these two above come immediately to mind, please
feel free to comment below if you know of others...
I will leave you with a favourite comment espoused by Mr Abbott
for thought: “It goes to a matter
of character & judgment?”
Noely
@YaThinkN
Then again, I am just a ‘punter’, what would I
know... I seriously hope the article I take
exception to here is just based on information given, as I know
that Journalists, who are the professionals in calling Bullshit
on politicians and potential politicians are interested in this
scandal. For all I know, Mr Brough may not have anything to
answer to in this scandal, all the information may not have been
put in front of Judge Rares, but until the questions are asked,
we, the punters, don't know?
07 Feb 2013 Update: After this went out on
twitter, many talking about Mr Brough not answering questions and
Ms Emma Alberici from ABC's Lateline also confirmed as per the
below that Mr Brough refused their requests as well for an
interview:
07 Feb 2013 Update: Simon Cullen from ABC had
interview with Mr Brough, view "Brough speaks on Slipper case
involvement", unfortunately Mr Brough used 'weasel words'
about legal appeal to not answer the question about the diary
theft, though at least was nice to see someone in the media
attempting to ask Mr Brough questions.
08 Feb 2013 - This article of interest was sent to me via
Twitter, "Bringing back the Brough: 10 of the
worst things Mad Mal did in office" I can't verify all the
info here obviously, though it is something that maybe one of the
media organisations which do have the funds and journalists
should be seriously looking into?
