| MONTHLY NEWS - December 2007 |
| THIS IS PAGE 4 OF DECEMBER 2007 MONTHLY NEWS - MonNewsDEC4 |
IEMMA IS COMING BACK - onto the front pages again
SUBTITLE : RUM WARS - 220 YEARS ON
HEADING : WHAT CONSISTENT PRINCIPLE DRIVES THE GOVERNMENT ?
ANSWER : Favouritism and Patronage ???
We have said it before and we will say it again - the consistents of "life" in NSW
since the British invasion in the 18th century has been rum and the
constabulary - or problems associated with them.
AND it may be that recent rum wars are connected with what the
Sunday Telegraph calls a "Bombshell".
We are yet to fully digest what is now in the public domain - but what we have
seen is very disturbing, very disturbing indeed.
We are not referring to the allegations themselves (although they are
disturbing enough) but how matters have been handled, statements that have
previously been made (which now appear to be false) and the Premier's
response which appears unfathomable in light of his response in other
circumstances.
The thing that stuck out like "dogs" to us, was this :
" The Sunday Telegraph revealed late last year how Mr Koperberg had
been the subject of an AVO.
At the time, Mr Koperberg said he was concerned some of his political
rivals had copies of his ex-wife's affidavit. He said that while he had
never seen it, the allegations were without foundation."
Earlier we had read this :
" However, the AVO served on Mr Koperberg was withdrawn several weeks later after a reconciliation between the pair. "
Now somewhere, in some dark and dingy basement we suspect the court records of that AVO, are lying and gathering dust.
Our information, and it might be wrong, is that an AVO summons contains the "affidavit" setting out the grounds on which the AVO is
sought. In other words the summons and the affidavit are contained within the one single document. Which leaves us wondering - if Mr
Koperberg was served with the summons to go to court - how is it he didn't see the affidavit attached to the summons ? And how is it he
is able to deny the contents of an affidavit he has never seen ?
We suspect the answer lies in that darkened basement.
In another basement, a dental surgeon may hold patient records of treating a young woman for a displaced filling.
BUT whatever be the "truth",what is the difference between the situation now of Mr Koperberg and that of Paul Gibson when he was
sacked as a then unsworn minister.
There is none discernible.
AND as such we can only assume that Mr Iemma's decisions are being made on the basis of favouritism and patronage - and not
principle.
HOWEVER Premier Iemma says there is a distinction :
Mr Iemma said Mr Koperberg's situation could not be compared to Mr Chaytor, and he said the allegations were not as severe as
those against Mr Gibson.
“I do not tolerate violence of any sort,” the Premier said.
“I have been absolutely assured he (Koperberg) has never been violent to any woman.”
It seems allegations of "big bashings" make the alleged perpetrator unsuitable for office, whereas allegations of "smaller bashings" make
the alleged perpetrator still fit for office.
GO FIQURE !!!!
SOURCES :
Linda Simalis, The Secret Claims they tried to hide, Sunday Telegraph, 2 December 2007 p.4 [ online ]
Linda Simalis, Mark of a weak leader , Sunday Telegraph, 2 December 2007 p. 4 [ online ]
Ilya Gridnef, Minister denies alleged violence, Daily Telegraph 2 December 2007 [ online ]
SUBTITLE : RUM WARS - 220 YEARS ON
HEADING : WHAT CONSISTENT PRINCIPLE DRIVES THE GOVERNMENT ?
ANSWER : Favouritism and Patronage ???
We have said it before and we will say it again - the consistents of "life" in NSW
since the British invasion in the 18th century has been rum and the
constabulary - or problems associated with them.
AND it may be that recent rum wars are connected with what the
Sunday Telegraph calls a "Bombshell".
We are yet to fully digest what is now in the public domain - but what we have
seen is very disturbing, very disturbing indeed.
We are not referring to the allegations themselves (although they are
disturbing enough) but how matters have been handled, statements that have
previously been made (which now appear to be false) and the Premier's
response which appears unfathomable in light of his response in other
circumstances.
The thing that stuck out like "dogs" to us, was this :
" The Sunday Telegraph revealed late last year how Mr Koperberg had
been the subject of an AVO.
At the time, Mr Koperberg said he was concerned some of his political
rivals had copies of his ex-wife's affidavit. He said that while he had
never seen it, the allegations were without foundation."
Earlier we had read this :
" However, the AVO served on Mr Koperberg was withdrawn several weeks later after a reconciliation between the pair. "
Now somewhere, in some dark and dingy basement we suspect the court records of that AVO, are lying and gathering dust.
Our information, and it might be wrong, is that an AVO summons contains the "affidavit" setting out the grounds on which the AVO is
sought. In other words the summons and the affidavit are contained within the one single document. Which leaves us wondering - if Mr
Koperberg was served with the summons to go to court - how is it he didn't see the affidavit attached to the summons ? And how is it he
is able to deny the contents of an affidavit he has never seen ?
We suspect the answer lies in that darkened basement.
In another basement, a dental surgeon may hold patient records of treating a young woman for a displaced filling.
BUT whatever be the "truth",what is the difference between the situation now of Mr Koperberg and that of Paul Gibson when he was
sacked as a then unsworn minister.
There is none discernible.
AND as such we can only assume that Mr Iemma's decisions are being made on the basis of favouritism and patronage - and not
principle.
HOWEVER Premier Iemma says there is a distinction :
Mr Iemma said Mr Koperberg's situation could not be compared to Mr Chaytor, and he said the allegations were not as severe as
those against Mr Gibson.
“I do not tolerate violence of any sort,” the Premier said.
“I have been absolutely assured he (Koperberg) has never been violent to any woman.”
It seems allegations of "big bashings" make the alleged perpetrator unsuitable for office, whereas allegations of "smaller bashings" make
the alleged perpetrator still fit for office.
GO FIQURE !!!!
SOURCES :
Linda Simalis, The Secret Claims they tried to hide, Sunday Telegraph, 2 December 2007 p.4 [ online ]
Linda Simalis, Mark of a weak leader , Sunday Telegraph, 2 December 2007 p. 4 [ online ]
Ilya Gridnef, Minister denies alleged violence, Daily Telegraph 2 December 2007 [ online ]
TORBAY MUST RUE THE DAY HE LEFT THE LABOR PARTY
When Richard Torbay left the Labor Party and contested the seat of Northern Tablelands as an
Independent in 1999, he probably did so because of a belief that the seat couldn't be won by a person
under the Labor logo. However history suggests otherwise, with Bill McCarthy holding the seat as a very
popular member from 1976-1987. In hindsight - Torbay would have won the seat as a Labor Party member
in 1999, or on a second run in 2003.
With the Iemma administration beginning to get "that feeling" about it, he would now be poised to become the next Premier of NSW, the first
country MP to hold that position since Jack Renshaw. That would make a historic first - well at least a first for some time. After all, with Iemma
looking to fall on his sword, Mr Torbay would have been next in line. John Watkins, a member of the left would be unlikely to muster the
numbers, against the support Mr Torbay could expect to receive from the Terrigals factional leaders,Eddie Obeid and Joe Tripodi. Whats
that song ...."Regrets... I've had a few.....but I did it my way ".
When Richard Torbay left the Labor Party and contested the seat of Northern Tablelands as an
Independent in 1999, he probably did so because of a belief that the seat couldn't be won by a person
under the Labor logo. However history suggests otherwise, with Bill McCarthy holding the seat as a very
popular member from 1976-1987. In hindsight - Torbay would have won the seat as a Labor Party member
in 1999, or on a second run in 2003.
With the Iemma administration beginning to get "that feeling" about it, he would now be poised to become the next Premier of NSW, the first
country MP to hold that position since Jack Renshaw. That would make a historic first - well at least a first for some time. After all, with Iemma
looking to fall on his sword, Mr Torbay would have been next in line. John Watkins, a member of the left would be unlikely to muster the
numbers, against the support Mr Torbay could expect to receive from the Terrigals factional leaders,Eddie Obeid and Joe Tripodi. Whats
that song ...."Regrets... I've had a few.....but I did it my way ".
ACCEPTABLE ALLEGATIONS vs UNACCEPTABLE ALLEGATIONS OF BRUTALITY TO FEMALES
Apparently Morris Iemma has said their is a difference between the Paul Gibson case and the
Phil Koperberg case - the allegations against Mr Koperberg are less severe.
In order to provide some practical assistance to would be alleged female bashers, aspiring to the
ministry, we set out what is an acceptable allegation. All the would be minister need do is ensure
(so far as he can have any control over allegations made by an alleged victim) that the allegations
are no worse than these :-
We were going to set out a list of unacceptable allegations, however we are feeling too ill to even contemplate the project. Let's just leave it
at that.
So the best possible advice to would be ministers is - just don't get into a situation where an alleged victim can make any type of allegation
- acceptable or unacceptable .
JUST TO HAND :
A further distinction can be drawn between the Gibson et al and Koperberg cases apparently
But Mr Iemma says Mr Koperberg's case is different.
"These are matters that were in local and family court and have been resolved through mutual understandings, and secondly Mr
Koperberg emphatically denies... ever being violent towards women," he said.
I'll have to sleep on that and see if I can dream up a reason why that makes a difference.
BUT for now it seems it's OK for allegations to be made against a minister that he bashed a female if she consented, forgave the basher or
the relationship has ended and all property settlement proceedings have concluded (which still has me scratching my head in relation to
the difference with the Gibson case).
SOURCE :
Minister "hit wife and stepdaughter", Sunday Telegraph, 2 December 2007 p.86
ABC News, Iemma denies double standards in Koperberg case, ABC Radio, 2 December 2007 [ online ]
Apparently Morris Iemma has said their is a difference between the Paul Gibson case and the
Phil Koperberg case - the allegations against Mr Koperberg are less severe.
In order to provide some practical assistance to would be alleged female bashers, aspiring to the
ministry, we set out what is an acceptable allegation. All the would be minister need do is ensure
(so far as he can have any control over allegations made by an alleged victim) that the allegations
are no worse than these :-
- Hit heavily across the face, push up against a wall and repeatedly strike across the face
- Push 20 yo woman away who tries to help mother, hit her to the face several times with such force to a crown filling is knocked out of
her teeth, out of her mouth and onto the floor - Rip telephone cord from wall to prevent alleged victim calling police
- Hide keys to prevent alleged victims entering the shared home
- Pick up bar stool and hold over head to create in alleged victim fear she may be struck with it
- Pick up cake, hurl it with such force it makes a hole in the wall - whilst constantly cussing - using the f**** word.
- Perform such actions in the presence of 14 year old girl - to create in her fear, terror and anxiety for her mum, causing her to run
2km to the safety of a relative's home.
We were going to set out a list of unacceptable allegations, however we are feeling too ill to even contemplate the project. Let's just leave it
at that.
So the best possible advice to would be ministers is - just don't get into a situation where an alleged victim can make any type of allegation
- acceptable or unacceptable .
JUST TO HAND :
A further distinction can be drawn between the Gibson et al and Koperberg cases apparently
But Mr Iemma says Mr Koperberg's case is different.
"These are matters that were in local and family court and have been resolved through mutual understandings, and secondly Mr
Koperberg emphatically denies... ever being violent towards women," he said.
I'll have to sleep on that and see if I can dream up a reason why that makes a difference.
BUT for now it seems it's OK for allegations to be made against a minister that he bashed a female if she consented, forgave the basher or
the relationship has ended and all property settlement proceedings have concluded (which still has me scratching my head in relation to
the difference with the Gibson case).
SOURCE :
Minister "hit wife and stepdaughter", Sunday Telegraph, 2 December 2007 p.86
ABC News, Iemma denies double standards in Koperberg case, ABC Radio, 2 December 2007 [ online ]
MEN WHO VERBALLY ABUSE WOMEN
There will be those who would argue the relative wrongs of verbal as opposed to physical abuse. For
present purposes it is sufficient say to say all forms of abuse are wrong.
It was by way of words contained in a media release that Peter Draper MP chose to verbally abuse
alternate Health Minister Jillian Skinner, MP. He did so by using emotive and intemperate language.
see Peter Draper MP - You have been caught out [ HERE ]
Some might say it was fair enough, it's all part of the political game where one side (the government) is
trying to hang onto power and the other side (opposition) is trying to take it. We have a different view,
but it is unnecessary to discuss now.
Whichever way you look at it, Peter Draper MP's verbal abuse was particularly bad, because he was probably guilty of the very things he
accused Mrs Skinner of. She was not guilty of the things he accused her of, as we found out when we did an independent audit of the
figures.
We have adopted a policy at this website of providing an opportunity for someone to comment on something, before we put an item up.
However, Mr Draper is on our "Do not comment list" (he is not Robinson Crusoe however) because of earlier failures to respond and on
the one occasion he did he said something like - Don't expect a reply again . Since then we have not bothered to show him the courtesy
of asking for a comment , as we do not wish to waste his time or ours. However, as always, if he wishes to make a contribution after an
item goes up (subject to editorial oversight),we will certainly provide him - like anyone else - the opportunity to put his version on the
record. On this occasion,after reading the article he, or some-one purporting to be him, sent us Christmas cheers but did not put forward
any disputation of the content of the article.
A reasonable onlooker, may conclude he accepted the contents of the article.
AND in those circumstances - it is surprising he has not made, to date, a public apology to Mrs Skinner for his verbal abuse of her.
There will be those who would argue the relative wrongs of verbal as opposed to physical abuse. For
present purposes it is sufficient say to say all forms of abuse are wrong.
It was by way of words contained in a media release that Peter Draper MP chose to verbally abuse
alternate Health Minister Jillian Skinner, MP. He did so by using emotive and intemperate language.
see Peter Draper MP - You have been caught out [ HERE ]
Some might say it was fair enough, it's all part of the political game where one side (the government) is
trying to hang onto power and the other side (opposition) is trying to take it. We have a different view,
but it is unnecessary to discuss now.
Whichever way you look at it, Peter Draper MP's verbal abuse was particularly bad, because he was probably guilty of the very things he
accused Mrs Skinner of. She was not guilty of the things he accused her of, as we found out when we did an independent audit of the
figures.
We have adopted a policy at this website of providing an opportunity for someone to comment on something, before we put an item up.
However, Mr Draper is on our "Do not comment list" (he is not Robinson Crusoe however) because of earlier failures to respond and on
the one occasion he did he said something like - Don't expect a reply again . Since then we have not bothered to show him the courtesy
of asking for a comment , as we do not wish to waste his time or ours. However, as always, if he wishes to make a contribution after an
item goes up (subject to editorial oversight),we will certainly provide him - like anyone else - the opportunity to put his version on the
record. On this occasion,after reading the article he, or some-one purporting to be him, sent us Christmas cheers but did not put forward
any disputation of the content of the article.
A reasonable onlooker, may conclude he accepted the contents of the article.
AND in those circumstances - it is surprising he has not made, to date, a public apology to Mrs Skinner for his verbal abuse of her.
CONSISTENCY OF APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES
I am having nightmares trying to come to grips with the "principles" Premier Iemma brings to governance in this state,and the consistency
with which those principles are applied.
Serious allegations of assault were made against Paul Gibson MP. Serious allegations of abusing the electoral system were made against
Mike Kaiser, now employed as Premier Iemma's Chief of Staff - his No 1 man.
Lets examine the 2 cases in matrix format to see if it throws any light on "the principle" or how it is applied.
I am sorry - I still can't get my head around it.
ADDENDUM :
In an ironic twist, Mr Kaiser has spent his weekend in an exercise in "crisis management", putting out spot fires created by the Koperberg
'Bombshell'.
I am having nightmares trying to come to grips with the "principles" Premier Iemma brings to governance in this state,and the consistency
with which those principles are applied.
Serious allegations of assault were made against Paul Gibson MP. Serious allegations of abusing the electoral system were made against
Mike Kaiser, now employed as Premier Iemma's Chief of Staff - his No 1 man.
Lets examine the 2 cases in matrix format to see if it throws any light on "the principle" or how it is applied.
I am sorry - I still can't get my head around it.
ADDENDUM :
In an ironic twist, Mr Kaiser has spent his weekend in an exercise in "crisis management", putting out spot fires created by the Koperberg
'Bombshell'.
|
NSW & SAUD AFRIKA - Parallel Universes
The governance style of President Mbeki of South Africa and Premier Morris
Iemma in NSW have much in common.
With Vice-President of the African National Congress (ANC) Jacob Zuma
believing he has the numbers to capture the presidency of the ANC from
President Mbeki, at the ANC conference election in
Limpopo later in December 2007 - supporters of Mr Zuma are demanding
Presdent Mbeki stand down as the country's President and call fresh elections
as soon as possible next year. That would enable Mr Zuma to become
South African President soon, rather than having to wait 18 months-
the further period Mr Mbeki's presidency could run under the constitution.
Mr Zuma's supporters say if President Mbeki does not call early elections,
they will move no-confidence in him.
Whilst in South Africa the plotters are out in the open, in NSW the discontents
are hiding in the forest undergrowth.
Good summer rains with a greening of the forest, will act as a buffer against
the usual Australian summer bushfire season.
However, if conditions remain brown and tinder-dry and there is a
continuation of 'bombshells' , like the one on 1st December 2007, over
the summer - the plotters my be forced out of the forest and onto the open
plains.
It has not been a good start to summer for President (oops Premier) Morris.
SOURCE :
Buddy Naidu, Moipone Malefane, Zine George, Brendan Boyle and Rowan Philp, Plan to oust Mbeki, Sunday Times, 2 December 2007
p.1 [ online ]
I'M ready to rule, November News page 26, www.independent-nsw.com {HERE]
The governance style of President Mbeki of South Africa and Premier Morris
Iemma in NSW have much in common.
With Vice-President of the African National Congress (ANC) Jacob Zuma
believing he has the numbers to capture the presidency of the ANC from
President Mbeki, at the ANC conference election in
Limpopo later in December 2007 - supporters of Mr Zuma are demanding
Presdent Mbeki stand down as the country's President and call fresh elections
as soon as possible next year. That would enable Mr Zuma to become
South African President soon, rather than having to wait 18 months-
the further period Mr Mbeki's presidency could run under the constitution.
Mr Zuma's supporters say if President Mbeki does not call early elections,
they will move no-confidence in him.
Whilst in South Africa the plotters are out in the open, in NSW the discontents
are hiding in the forest undergrowth.
Good summer rains with a greening of the forest, will act as a buffer against
the usual Australian summer bushfire season.
However, if conditions remain brown and tinder-dry and there is a
continuation of 'bombshells' , like the one on 1st December 2007, over
the summer - the plotters my be forced out of the forest and onto the open
plains.
It has not been a good start to summer for President (oops Premier) Morris.
SOURCE :
Buddy Naidu, Moipone Malefane, Zine George, Brendan Boyle and Rowan Philp, Plan to oust Mbeki, Sunday Times, 2 December 2007
p.1 [ online ]
I'M ready to rule, November News page 26, www.independent-nsw.com {HERE]
