ABUSE OF CHILDREN COVER UP IN SA LABOR GOVERNMENT!!

From: g87

Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:22 PM

To: the australian

Subject: ABUSE OF CHILDREN COVER UP IN SA GOVERNMENT!!

ABUSE OF CHILDREN COVER UP IN SA LABOR GOVERNMENT!!

The attempted cover – up is the default position of Government, the Church et al.

How pathetic to find yet another element of disrepute in SA Labor in their cover up of sexual abuse of children in SA’s ‘’best regarded’’ government schools!

Instead of discussing this we have the classical – leftist pathetic hyper – ventilative reaction of Federal Labor’s Albenese on Sunday on Skynews.16/12 – with the perennial ‘mega lame’ Van Onselen.

A A regularly uses the derivative of Watergate for the most mundane irrelevancies.

‘’Ashbygate’’? This is what A designated it!

How puerile!

I guess the time will come when the judgement of the judge will be challenged. Certainly basis clear thinking.

Compare the asinity with the letter from David Samuel 15/12 is one of the best examples of clear thinking in recent times!

Compare with the rambling rubbish from Emmerson and virtually any leftist who writes anything.

But Van Onselen disgraced himself further in the so – called debate he held with a troika of leftists against the lone Peter Debnam

[Hewson, Kernot and Geoff Gallop]

Actually – with PVO – it was 4 against one!

Van O regularly sets records for the wrong reasons.

So do the Labored Labor lot!

Geoff Seidner

13 Alston Gr East St Kilda 3183

03 9525 9299

15/12 - Parents in dark on five sex abuse cases

• Culture of cover up @ SA schools - 6/12

#################################################################
#################################################################

BRILLIANT LETTER HEREIN!!!
Politicians' charter

• From:The Australian
• December 15, 2012 12:00AM

IN the actions brought by James Ashby against the commonwealth and Peter Slipper, the commonwealth paid $50,000 in an out-of-court settlement.

On the same facts, a judge of the same court has given summary judgment to Slipper, dismissing Ashby's case as an abuse of process.

It may well be true that the predominant purpose of the action was to pursue a political attack against Slipper. But what of the judge's statement that "it is not necessary to make any finding about whether Mr Slipper did sexually harass Mr Ashby".

Assume for a moment that, instead of being a Coalition MP who had left his party to become Speaker, Slipper had been the president of a golf club who was found to be promoting a competing club.

If Ashby had been the bar steward, would he have had an action against the club president for harassment dismissed because he may have collaborated with committee members who wanted to see the president overthrown? I doubt it.

The rules against abuse of process would be nothing but a politicians' charter if a political attack against a respondent were to be held by the courts as more serious than any other kind of attack. That is what would bring the administration of justice into disrepute among all right-thinking people.

David Samuel, North Richmond, NSW