I am a Catholic and I have a very appreciable understanding of the Scriptures. No matter what my understanding I continue to defer to the actual teachings of the Catholic Church, rather than rely upon my own interpretations.
In the past year or so there has been a flurry of posts and speculation about the End Times. Some of my Catholic friends are caught up with a belief that we are in the End Times based upon what I think is an imperfect understanding of the Book of the Apocalypse. For the record I am more of a Preterist than anything else, thus my views are somewhat coloured.
I do in fact disagree with some of the current interpretation of both the Book of Daniel and the Book of the Apocalypse, and yes I admit that I remain interested in the subject of Catholic eschatology even though I reject the idea that Jesus Christ is about to return.
Here are some of the reasons for my disagreement as well as how I am trying to reconcile some current events with regard to “prophecy”.
First of all, how we understand and interpret the word “prophecy” is actually a key to understanding much of what is written in the Scripture. Scriptural prophecy does not necessarily mean a forecasting of future events, although that can be an element. It is in fact interpreting God’s word in a present time. This is especially true of the Books of the Prophets such as those of Isaiah and Jeremiah. What we do is look back in hindsight and discover what the prophets have said in order to relate to present events. This is what Jesus did when he was teaching his disciples. The Book of the Apocalypse is a lot easier to understand if we begin by relating that book to events as they occurred at the time that John wrote both of his books. It was in fact a time of persecution, and it is from that angle that we should begin any examination of that book, without getting hung up on the minutae.
Second, many Catholics rely upon the writings of some very obscure saints believing that a particular saint (Malachy) was writing about our times. What I want to emphasise here is that Malachy was writing about events in his own time, and others have taken those writings and tried to apply them to our time. One would have to look at a time line for example to understand the implications of this point. For example, in the Middle Ages there were times when there were up to 3 or 4 living Popes. What Malachy wrote would be just as applicable to that period as it would be to the present time. For this reason I do not give a lot of time to such “prophecies” unless I know something about the contemporary period.
With that in mind, I want to turn my attention to some of the present events that might seem bewildering and might in fact bring to light some of these “prophecies”. One such prophecy relates to the number of popes prior to the end times. I have to state here that I think that it is far better to say “the end of our times as we know them”. It does not mean the end of the world, but it means the end of stability in our Christian world, at least for the time being.
Something that stands out to me is that for the first time in my lifetime we have two Popes. This is because Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, or Pope Benedict XVI chose to step down from the office of the Bishop of Rome so that another would be appointed in his place. He retains the title of Pope Emeritus. This is something that is quite confusing to a lot of Catholics. It is not new, but in our lifetime it is novel. The question that arises in my mind is: Is this some kind of sign that things are about to change?
I will try to answer this question without reference to the Book of the Apocalypse because I would like to focus on some of what is happening around me, rather than on Scripture that is subject to human interpretation. What precisely am I seeing that has brought me to this point of wondering whether we are in the midst of “End Time”?
The answer to my question lies in the Middle East. The situation continues to be very dangerous. There has been a continuing upsurge in jihadi activity and this has been occurring for more than 50 years. At the beginning it was gradual, but it has been gathering pace in recent years. What it means is that Christians in the Middle East are at risk.
As well as the upsurge of violence in the Middle East, there has been an upsurge in migration patterns with Muslims attempting to infiltrate and take over Christian countries by stealth. Some of this migration is done by legal means but a lot of the migration is done by illegal means. We have a crisis because these Muslims claim to be refugees when they are nothing of a kind. As a result there are economic implications which has seen a burden being placed on taxpayers for the welfare of what I consider to be economic bludgers. It is not just in Australia, but in the USA, Canada, the UK, France, Spain, Greece, Italy, Germany and many other European nations. So long as we continue with an economic welfare system where people are being handed money and housing then we are screwed. We do not have enough taxpayers to pay for these welfare bludgers.
It is this very situation that has got me thinking again about how to understand what might be end times, and how this era has similarity to the early Christian era. Whilst we do not have the persecution of a type where Christians are being fed to the lions, I do think that there has been an upsurge in various kinds of persecution of Christians.
The problem is not necessarily caused by Muslims, but just like in the era of the early Christians, it is the Atheists that remain the problem. Here is why:
1. One principal that I firmly believe is necessary is the separation of Church and State. Historically, what it means is that the State cannot dictate what the people must follow. In early Christian times the Roman emperor was seen to be a god, and as such it was demanded that people worship his statues. When the Christians refused to worship the emperor by the offering of sacrifices to his statue, they were thrown in prison and accused of treason. Since there was no separation between church and state then it meant that those who refused to worship the emperor were committing treason. In a later period, when kings and princes of Europe were attempting to break away from the Church, this led to further persecutions. For example in England, when Henry VIII declared himself as leader of the Church, thus creating the Church of England, anyone who remained a Catholic and loyal to Rome were persecuted, and then when Mary ascended to the throne, it was the turn of Protestants to be persecuted, then the Roundheads took on the Cavaliers, and anyone who was not a Puritan was persecuted and Catholic priests were martyred. Then when the Puritans were thrown out of Government and the monarchy was restored, the Puritans were in turn persecuted and they fled to the Americas.
It was from this persecution that the founding fathers had in their mind there must not be a declared state religion. However, in our time, the atheists have applied to the courts and the principal has been reinterpreted so that Christians are not allowed to so much as wear a cross let alone pray at a school assembly. The atheists have been attempting to dismantle Christianity at every opportunity.
I have previously written about the disappearance of the Beaumont children. Since I was a child when they disappeared I have very little extra to add to what I have already posted.
However, I do have some information gleaned from a recent report on the TV. There has been a breakthrough in this case. A private investigator wrote a book about the story. As a result of the book a woman came forward and spoke with the author regarding the identity of the man who was most likely the kidnapper. This woman was married to the son of that man, and her story came from what the son had told her.
The information given to the investigator was also passed on to the two detectives who were assigned to the case. What the woman told the investigator does in fact tie in with information that the detectives had when the case was still fresh.
The most likely kidnapper (who is now dead) was a wealthy man who liked to wear silk shirts. He was seen talking to the children. He took them to a shop and he took them to his home. The son actually saw the children in his yard.
Perhaps there can be a coronial inquest into the matter so that the Beaumont children can be laid to rest, even though their resting place is very likely to be underneath a car park in Adelaide (not very far from where they disappeared).
There is a news item regarding the light sentence given to the father of a 19 year old girl for the crime of incest. I have read in the print media that this man has attempted to hide his assets so that the young woman cannot sue his estate over this matter. My concern however is the light sentence that was given to a man who has shown no remorse for his actions, and in fact blames the girl for what took place.
This is a matter that is very close to my heart because I am one of the many women who have suffered the indignity of incest. The perpetrator was not my father but a family member. In the case of my nieces, it was the stepfather/father, and when that situation became a real blot on the landscape, the one who made the complaint was ostracized by some family members.
In situations involving incest there is always an element of fear, especially when the person committing the crime is much older than the victim. There is an element of bullying involved as well. For the victim, though, there is a loss of confidence. There is an inability to get people to understand, or even put a stop to what is happening. It takes a lot of courage to actually make a complaint regarding what took place because society seems to treat incest victims differently from rape victims.
However, I have to add here that loss of confidence does not equal drug taking at all. It means trying hard to defeat particular demons including clinical depression.
Since I have owned my Google Nexus, I have been reading many books, especially the old classics. The first books that I began to read were those written by my favourite authoress, Jane Austen. As a result of the maturing of my mind, since I first read Pride and Prejudice, I have begun to appreciate the depth of Jane Austen’s understanding of human nature. Many of her characters were not in the least bit insipid but were devious, and at least where the male characters were concerned, they were also gold-diggers. Jane Austen lived during a time when it was common for the younger son of the landed gentry to end up as clerics within the Church of England, and always seeking to find a wife who had a fortune. The most interesting and most conniving female character was that of Lady Susan!!
I have just finished reading Charles Dickens “A Tale of Two Cities”. Poor Charles Darnay, because he ended up in a very difficult situation first in London, and then in Paris. The two cities are London and Paris, and one of the main characters is that of Charles Darnay who is using an anglicised version of his mother’s name. As the story develops to its final cresendo, all of the pieces of the story begin to fit together, right down to the revengefulness of Therese DeFarge, for it turns out that Charles Darnay’s father had raped and killed the sister and brother of Therese DeFarge, and that it was Dr. Manette who had attended that sister as she lay dying. Therese Defarge had no interest in the innocence of particular individuals as she sought to seek revenge for what had happened in her family.
The way in which the story was weaved provided an insight into the human condition at that particular time. It was a period during which human nature was at its most perverse. The ordinary people, especially in France lived in a shocking condition. The aristocracy had become of the oppressors of the people. When the Bastille was stormed it was the beginning of a dreadful period of revenge when one could say that Satan had entered into the hearts of the people of France.
It is worth pointing out that the story that unfolded could very easily have been a story found in the Bible, perhaps, not in the details, or the characters, but in the fact that human nature itself is quite perverse, and inevitably there is always a return to one group of individuals oppressing another subgroup. Such was the case even at the time of Jesus Christ, where the Pharisees and the Sadducees were in control of those who were not well off. Going beyond that time, to the time of Isaiah, the same things can be observed about the ruling class in particular.
Even in the 21st Century, we are witnesses of the perverse nature of humankind. We see it any country where there is a ruling class, for example in India where there is a caste system. South Africa has gone from the situation of Apartheid to a situation that is deadly for most whites. The ruling class of South Africa, and of many an African nation is no different from the peasants who took control in France during the most terrible time of the revolution, where many innocent people lost their heads.
There are few modern authors who live up to the standards of an author like Charles Dickens, especially authors who capture the nature of the human condition, or at least do some kind of research before setting out writing their stories. Perhaps the author of the Harry Potter series is one of the few modern authors that are worth mentioning, others tend towards writing trash (such as the 50 Shades of Grey series).
I have nothing but pity and empathy for the mother of Linda Stillwell and the mother of the Beaumont children. The children disappeared and their bodies have never been found. For these mothers there is no closing because they have not been able to conduct a funeral and lay to rest their loved ones, yet we know that the children have been murdered.
This post is simply a post-script on their story, because today I saw that Mrs Priest, the mother of Linda Stillwell has been fighting to have the alleged possible murderer, Derek Percy, testify at a re-opened inquest on Linda’s disappearance.
Derek Percy has more or less admitted to the crime of kidnapping and killing Linda Stillwell, as well as admitting that he was in the area when the Beaumont children disappeared. However, Derek Percy has invoked the Carmen Lawrence and claims that he does not remember. This is put down to the fact that he is insane…. sure thing…. but he has already admitted enough for the finger to be pointed at him. Once Derek Percy testifies, then hopefully Mrs Priest will have that much needed closure over the disappearance of her daughter, yet she will never have a funeral and a burial.
I saw this news item and to be honest I am surprised about the fuss because emus are known to be runners and they like companions!!
Many years ago John Williamson released his song “Old Man Emu”… and yes I love the song especially the bit about “he can run the pants off a kangaroo”. It all evokes memories relating to some of the sillier things that I have done over time.
Emus are an Australian bird. I had no idea that they were also farmed in the United States and a few other places, but that is all beside the point. Here in Australia we have various wild life sanctuaries and there is one that is on the outskirts of Albury. When I was a lot younger, and a young mother, and the John Williamson song was still relatively new, I remember that we had been travelling between Melbourne and Sydney and that we stopped on the roadside near this sanctuary. The emus were in plain sight.
Now some of the silly things that I have done in the past include doing things like imitating roosters, in the barn at the Royal Melbourne show, and getting them crowing :). On this particular occasion, I had decided to see if I could get the emu to run… so I looked the emu in the eye, caught its attention, got it to follow my head bobbing up and down, and then I began to run beside the fence to see if it would follow me….
Emus love to run folks, and if a person is running, and the emu sees a person running then the emu will join in the fun!!
My heading is not meant to be taken literally, but there is some truth in a non-literal sense because the noose is tightening around the neck of Juliar Dullard.
I started to follow the whole saga when the Thomson affair became prominent in the press. Unlike Utegate, which was Malcolm Turnbull’s pitiful effort to try and slime Kevin Rudd, the wrong doing by Thomson has now been more or less established. Nobody stole Thomson’s license and credit card, then used the credit card to pay for the services of prostitutes. The signature on the credit card slips was not fraudulent. What stood out when the Thomson affair really began to blow up was the way in which Juliar Dullard defended him, expressing her faith in this pathetic man who used union funds for his election campaign, and enriching himself. The Thomson affair is not finished, and we wait to see whether the police will be laying criminal charges.
The sleaziness did not end with Craig Thomson. There is the matter of Peter Slipper, another extreme sleazy person, now former member of the Liberal National Party of Qld. At the point when he resigned from the party he was about to be kicked out, as well as being disendorsed. It took a long time for the Liberals to do something about this sleazy individual. However, it is what Juliar Dullard did in relation to Peter Slipper that is the point here. She forced Harry Jenkins, who took the job of being Speaker seriously to resign (yes we do not believe the given story about Harry’s decision) and then she had Peter Slipper installed as Speaker. Then came the Ashby bombshell, with the allegation of improper behaviour. This is something that continues before the courts so it is not wise to write about the actual case. On the other hand, as a woman I must register my disgust over the text messages where Peter Slipper described women in the most derogatory sleazy terms. Yet, Juliar Gillard and Nicola Roxon supported this sleazy individual. Nicola Roxon, the facile attorney-general (yes the non-capitals is deliberate because this fishwife should not be in that role), attempted to shut the court case down. In fact she behaved in a disgraceful fashion, but at least she did not manage to shut the case down.
This leads me to the most disgusting rant of all rants in the Parliament, the day in which there was an attempt to censure the former Speaker Peter Slipper over his filthy text messages. One would think that the fishwives, haridans and harpies on the government benches would have been upset over the content of what was stated… but NO…. they did not blink!! The sub-Prime Juliar Gillard attacked the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Anthony Abbott, claiming that he was the misogynist. The rant iteself was absolutely disgusting and it brought no dignity to the Office of the Prime Minister. It was a most shameful exhibition within the Parliament that day. As a woman I will state that JULIAR Gillard does not represent me, or my views. I want nothing to do with her ranting. I think that she behaved in a most pathetic fashion. For the record, Tony Abbott is not a misogynist. Those haridans on the government benches behave like they are man-haters or misandrists because in fact that is what they are, misandrists.
Whilst all of this has been happening, Juliar has been unable to shut down the inquiries about her own past and her involvement with Bruce Wilson, the ex-AWU official who ripped off close to $1,000,000 in both W.A. and Victoria. When Juliar expressed confidence in Craig Thomson she did so because she does not have a moral compass. Let me be clear here, the woman has committed adultery on several occasions and with different sexual partners. Bruce Wilson was only one of several married men who have jumped into bed with this woman. It does not bother her that she is taking the husband of another woman. Lack of morality in one aspect of life, also leads to a lack of morality in other aspects of life, and that includes being willing to get involved in the setting up of an Association without the knowledge of the union.
It is important to point out that Juliar’s client was not Bruce Wilson, but it was the AWU. Client confidentiality was owed to the union, not to Bruce Wilson. The AWU-Worker’s Reform Association was not authorized by the union. Bruce Wilson did not have authority to set up such a body. It was a breach of the union rules to set up such a body. Yet Juliar Gillard drew up the Articles of Association, and she wrote on the application form the name – Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association. By assisting Bruce Wilson, Gillard has left herself open to possible criminal charges, especially when she kept the whole thing secret from the partners of Slater and Gordon, as well as from her client, the AWU.
It is not just about the setting up of the Association, it is also about the purchase of the Kerr St Fitzroy property that was placed in the name of Ralph Blewitt. It is also about the specific Power of Attorney that Bruce Wilson got Ralph Blewitt to sign after the Kerr St. property was purchased at auction. The power of attorney was backdated and witnessed by Juliar Gillard.
At the moment the revelations are coming thick and fast, with the latest being a cheque that was drawn in April 1995. The timing of the cheque with its payments divided as $5,000 cash and $10,000 to Con the Greek builder in the form of a bank cheque provide important clues about what people really knew.
Juliar Gillard continues to stonewall, obfuscate, and uses the Carmen Lawrence denfense of not remembering certain details. She has made some rather blatant false claims within the last few days. These claims are false because it is her name on the paperwork, and it sure looks like her handwriting on other documents of interest.
Time is running out for Juliar Dullard, and she will have to come clean sooner, rather than later about her role in the AWU scandal.
Yet, this story is bigger than Gillard, because there are others involved and the light needs to shine upon their participation in the whole affair as well. Starting with Bill Shorten and Nicola Roxon, including Christopher Hayes, Stephen Conroy, Michael Forshaw, and yes, even Bob Carr (the disgusting turd former Premier of NSW), all of these people need to be questioned about what they knew in regard to the affair. In particular, I want to know why Bill Shorten worked so hard to shut down calls for an inquiry into this matter, and I want to know who authorised the thugs to go beat up Bob Kernohan.
I am not and never have been a Labor voter. As far as the Watermelons aka the Green Party, are concerned, the sooner they are sent into political oblivion the better as far as I am concerned. Yet on making this statement, I am going to say without hesitation that there is one politician (there might be more), a Labor man, who is showing himself to be a man of integrity. That man is Robert McClelland, the former ALP Attorney General.
Robert McClelland was dumped from the front bench in favour of harpy and fish wife, Nicola Roxon. How can one compare someone who had the utmost integrity when it came to his job with someone as terrible as Nicola Roxon. The woman has attempted to pervert the course of justice with her remarks relating to the Ashby vs Slipper case. I could say a lot more but since that case is ongoing I will simply look and then shake my head in disbelief that this lightweight harpy was ever trusted with such a position.
I like Robert McClelland for a number of reasons including the fact that he is one of the few adults in the room. Take for example his words to the National Conference of the Australian Christian Lobby (he agreed to attend this conference but the Prime Minister declined based upon words that were spoken by a leader of the ACL regarding homosexual relationships – silly, stupid woman because she does not get that a majority of Australians feel very differently on a thorny subject). Robert McClelland stated the obvious when he said that the quality of the debate in Australia is nasty. Yes, I agree, and all of the nastiness is on Labor’s side of the fence. (I do not blame Robert McClelland or even Martin Ferguson, but I do blame the handbag harpies who are an absolute disgrace – and yes the way they carry on is most destructive and they give other women a bad name). I agree with the comments made by Robert McClelland since he addressed an issue that has been raging out of control since at least Australia Day. The Office of the Prime Minister has been behaving in an appalling fashion, and their attempts to slime the Leader of the Opposition are reaching into the bottom of the barrel. On top of that, the Prime Minister’s adviser, the slob from Scotland, should be sent packing – he is nothing but a slime ball and his advice has seen a real deterioration in the standards within the Parliament (and outside of the Parliament).
Of course there are many other reasons to like Robert McClelland even though I am politically opposed to his ideology, including the fact that he actually wanted to do something about the cronyism, theft of union funds, etc etc that has wrapped the union movement within Australian in a scandal that reaches back to the 1990s. There are two scandals that have been getting a lot of prominence: (1) the HSU and that grub Craig Thomson, plus others including Michael Williamson and (2) the AWU scandal that was raging in the 1990s but has not come to any proper conclusion. Robert McClelland is one of the men with integrity who have been battling to do something about these scandals, but there are others such as Bob Kernohan and Ian Cambridge who have also been trying to do something about what took place.
The AWU scandal is of direct relevance because it involves the Prime Minister. There is no way that this can be dismissed on the grounds of “I was young and naive”. That is a bullshit answer. It is meaningless, especially when Juliar the Dullard was over 30 years old when she was so ethically challenged in her job, that she slept with a man who was her client, she then helped him to set up a dummy association in West Australia, and also went as far as convincing one group of miners to give up their funeral fund account where monies were being held for the purpose of helping with funeral expenses if miners were killed on the job to Bruce Wilson. She actually went to Boulder, W.A. and spoke to the miners, telling them that their funds would be safe. This is only one aspect of what took place back in the 1990s. Once the account was set up Wilson sent invoices to Thiess in West Australia, who then got funds from the West Australian government that were then paid into a designated account called the AWU Workplace Reform Association. The “Association” was bogus. No work was done in regard to worker health and safety as designated in the invoices sent to Thiess. Money from that account was used to purchase a house in Fitzroy in the name of Blewitt, and it was then leased to Bruce Wilson. Juliar Gillard was at the auction for the house, she did the conveyancing on the house, but she did not charge either Blewitt or Wilson for the services rendered in her work time. She did not set up a file, and she never mentioned anything to her real client, the AWU. The leadership of the AWU was kept in the dark until the builders working on the renovations at the Gillard property turned up at the AWU asking to be paid. Gillard at the time was a partner in Slater and Gordon. She was asked to resign from the firm. Since Gillard was a partner she cannot claim that she was naive when all of this happened. It is simply not true.
The thing is that both Bill Shorten and Nicola Roxon knew what had happened at the time that all of this took place because both Shorten and Roxon were working for another law firm, Maurice Blackburn, and Roxon did work on the AWU account after Slater and Gordon lost the account. Roxon knew all of the details of what had taken place, and as such her integrity is also very much on the line because like her current boss, she is continuing to lie about what she knew and when she knew it.
Robert McClelland comes into this story because he was the legal eagle consulted by Ian Cambridge and he gave an opinion on the subject, indicating that someone else had received benefit from the money that had been taken and used by Wilson. I have no doubt that McClelland has always behaved with integrity with regard to this scandal.
This brings me to the second scandal involving the Health Services Union. Finally someone has been charged in the matter – Michael Williamson. This is a separate issue from that involving Craig Thomson, since Thomson misused union funds by paying for call girls, as well as helping himself to something close to $500k for the purpose of his political campaign to enter into Parliament. The police in Victoria are continuing to investigate the case. The NSW police only investigated whether or not there was fraud involved in the use of the credit card (in that someone other than the owner used the card) and they stated that there was no fraud involved, meaning that the signature on the paperwork was the same as on the licence which was the same signature belonging to Thomson. The Prime Minister stated that she had faith in this grub Thomson, and in my view that is an opinion that is not worth a pinch of salt.
Oh poor Juliar, all her little lying chickens are coming home to roost, and look how her nose is growing so that it is longer than the nose on Pinnochio. Well, since I am a woman, and am not misogynist then I am going to dump on this evil witch who knifed someone in order to become Prime Minister.
As a woman, I bristle when I read about the sexploits of the female who stole the Prime Ministership. I do not accept a man playing around in that fashion and I most certainly expect that a woman who aspired after the top job should not be one who has been sleeping around with married men. It was not just Craig Emersen, a married man, who was fooling around with this particular harpie, but also the married Bruce Wilson. The fact is when a woman spreads her legs and takes on all manner of lovers, then she will look like the inevitable scarlet woman who is not to be trusted. The spreading of legs in that manner shows a massive amount of disloyalty.
The problem with Juliar and her sexist card is that she is using her man-hating army of harpies to make false claims against those men and women who are asking questions about her most questionable past, and I am not talking about her past adultery!!!!
The scandal from the 1990s has once again risen up and is now ready to bite the Prime Minister on her expansive bum. Yes, Germaine Greer got it right about that woman’s wide lard arse. It is humungus and she keeps wearing clothing that accentuates the width. It is not in the slightest bit flattering.
So exactly what is this scandal and why is something that happened so long ago very important? It is like this: the red-haired communist dullard was employed by Slater and Gordon. Her mentor was Brendan Murphy who is now a Federal judge. For some unfathomable reason, this piece of work ended up being offered a partnership in the firm and at the age of 35 when all of this blew up Dullard had managed to let down the other partners of Slater and Gordon due to her lack of ethics. She claims she did nothing wrong, but there are players who tell a very different story. She says she resigned, and that is true, but was she asked to resign which is what normally happens in such circumstances?
The Dullard was handling the AWU account with the help of Brendan Murphy. This is how she came to meet her adulterous partner, Bruce Wilson. The first thing to mention here is that it is not the slightest bit ethical for a lawyer to be shacking up with a client in this manner. Wilson was attempting to set up what is euphemistically called a slush fund, which he was using to launder money that he obtained from certain employers including Thiess (this was W.A. Government money). The entity that was set up was called the AWU workplace Reform Association. It had a stated purpose of providing training for employees for worker health and safety (if the purpose was true then I would welcome such a fund and the provision of training if it cut down on work site accidents). However, it emerged that the money was never used for that purpose and that Bruce Wilson personally benefited from the funds. It has been revealed that the Dullard helped with the setting up of this entity, and it is her handwriting on the application. There is a lot more that has been revealed over this matter as well, and the PM cannot insist that at the age of 35 she was young and naive. She was in fact a mature woman.
This story gets even murkier because of all of the other players who worked to hush up the scandal as well as ensuring that a Royal Commission as demanded by Ian Cambridge never got off the ground. Those other players include Nicola Roxon and Bill Shorten, as well as other well known union names. The extent of the corruption at the highest levels in the union movement is totally staggering. All credit though, must be given to Ian Cambridge and Robert McClelland who have been working tirelessly on attempting to bring union bossess to heel, so that they face the same penalties that are faced by company bosses when they end up being corrupt.
Whilst it can be parsed as “I have done nothing wrong” because the lying bitch did not in fact participate in the whole of the fraud, but she very likely received benefit as a result of the fraud committed by Wilson, the issue of legal ethics is one that needs to be front and centre in this whole disgraceful episode. The lack of legal ethics on display at that time means that this husband stealer and adultress is not a person who is fit for the role of Prime Minister. If she displayed such a lack of ethics back then, she certainly should never have been considered as someone who was to be a future leader of Australia.
This earlier episode in this snake’s life shows to us that Pinnochio was never fit to be Prime Minister. She always had the propensity to do underhand things and to lie about what she had done. This is how she has been treating the Australian people.
It is time for you to go Juliar Dullard.
What can one say about the debacle that is Australian politics? We have as our Prime Minister a woman who is so totally corrupt that she cannot see how she in fact behaved unethically as a lawyer working for Slater and Gordon when she set up for her lover, (yet another married man) the AWU Work Reform Association, that she knew it was to be used as a political slush fund, and that she did not open a file relating to the matter. The issue itself shows not a young and naive woman, who just happened to be 35 when this went down, but a woman who showed very poor judgement in her work dealings as well as in her choice of men. On the other hand, we have the local MP, Craig Thomson who thinks because a new report has criticized the Fair Work Australia investigation of his own rorting of the HSU that somehow he has been vindicated… NOT SO FAST Craig baby, you are still in deep doo doo.
These two issues are in fact very much related because the present Prime Minister knew about the Thomson affair and she has done everything that she can to stifle the investigation and the outcome of that investigation. The issue is that these union officials think that they have the right to use members’ funds as they see fit, including taking those funds and using them for political purposes, such as getting themselves elected as Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister’s own background is fast becoming a millstone around her neck, especially when more and more information regarding what actually took place is being released.
It is necessary to state that there is nothing in what has been released so far that indicates that Juliar Dullard knew about the worst of the fraudulent activity of her former married lover, Bruce Wilson. We have to accept her statement on whether or not she obtained any benefit. It is the wider issue of her lack of ethics that is very much an issue, and also is an indication of her own double standards, or rather her lack of standards which makes her unfit to be a leader in this country.
What has come to light is related to Dullard’s departure from Slater and Gordon. There are two other lawyers who might have known about the Dullard’s activities, one of them was promoted to the Federal Court by Dullard. However, the lawyers who were ex-partners at Slater and Gordon who have spoken up, include Mr. Gordon and another gentleman who now works in Seattle Washington. Both of them have a somewhat different view of the matter than the current head and spokesperson of that firm, Mr. Grech. One issue is the timing of Dullard’s departure. Was she asked to resign? Did she leave in September 1995 or in 1996? Someone is not telling the truth about the timing of that departure. Did she leave on good terms after that investigation? It seems that Mr. Gordon does not think that both she and Mr. Murphy left on good terms.
In both of these scandals it is the lack of ethics that shines through the murk and the mud. Craig Thomson showed that he is a man without ethics. His signature is on those dockets from the escort agency yet he continues to claim that he was set up. He claims that he was cleared by the NSW police but that is not the case because they were asked to investigate whether or not fraud had been committed relating to the credit card use, and they found that it had not – because the person who signed the dockets and whose license was used was the same person who owned the credit card. Mr. Thomson lacks ethics because he used more than $400,00 of union funds towards his own election to the Australian Parliament. This is totally disgraceful when the contributing members are amongst the lowest paid in Australia. In the case of the Prime Minister it looks like she behaved in a very unethical fashion regarding the setting up of this account. It looks like she knew that she was setting up a slush fund rather than a fund being set up for another purpose. She must have known that the union had no knowledge of the fund. It makes me wonder if there was anything else that she did in those days that can be regarded as unethical.
The issue here is that the Prime Minister showed that she had a professional lack of ethics. If the Law Society has the same kind of standards as the Australian Society of Accountants, then she should have been investigated for breeching a lawyer’s code of practice. In such cases the penalty is a loss of the right to practice as a professional. It also appears that the Dullard did in fact lose her law licence in 1995.