Ashby

[Aussie]

It's obvious you haven't.
No Aussie, if you read the bloody thing you will know that he made many assumptions about Brough and his involvement, this coloured his judgement. Mind you Roxon could have too, but that is just speculation. The assumptions would require him to be a mind reader for them to be able to prove them factual. (After he proves he actually is a mind reader of course)

I have read every word....and Rares made findings, or came to conclusions about the whole thing based entirely on what Ashby pleaded. That was his job. That is what Judges do, that is what they are paid to do, and unlike fuckwits like you, and NOIQ....and Akerman etc.......what he says counts big time.

The Appeal will fail.

[IQS.RLOW]

Keep sucking ALP cock fuckwit.
You act like judges are infallible and appeals are pointless...

Never has an appeal been more poignant or warranted

[Rorschach]

If you read it, and were a thinking logical person you'd realise that I am right.
Perhaps your political bias is impinging your thought processes. Happens with rusted-ons.

The assumptions Rares makes about Brough and his involvement cannot be substantiated by the evidence available to him...

end of story.

I don't like Ashby and I think I'd be tempted to toss his claims against Slipper out of court.
But that doesn't make Rares' judgement right.
I'd appeal it.
If i was Brough I'd be tempted to bring defamation charges against the judge.

[Aussie]

Here is your chance to really shine, Roach.

If you read it, and were a thinking logical person you'd realise that I am right.

Please bring to my attention every conclusion made by Rares which is not supported by the content of Ashby's Pleadings.

[IQS.RLOW]

How about you conform to your admittance of non-arseholery
Big ask, I know..

[Rorschach]

Oh no no no Arsie...
1/ start a topic and include the entire judgement.
2/ provide real evidentiary proof of the assumptions/conclusions made by Rares

[Aussie]

Oh no no no Arsie...
1/ start a topic and include the entire judgement.
2/ provide real evidentiary proof of the assumptions/conclusions made by Rares

Thought so.

[Rorschach]

You don't think...

You make inane comments.

Obviously you haven't read it and obviously you are incapable of doing anything anyone asks of you.

I don't mind debating it but I'm not doing all the work for you.

[IQS.RLOW]

This will be fun...Ashby using the ALPs own unhinged workplace laws against Slipper.

The onus of proof of no sexual harassment of Ashby is now on Slipper.
You should be proud of your party Aussie, the ALPs own workplace laws say that Slipper is guilty

I am not quite sure why James Ashby did not use this route to begin with.  And it will be very ironic if he were to win the case, using Labor’s own laws.

The relevent chapter of the Act is Part 3-1, which deals with general protections.  Under the act, employees have defined rights and are protected from adverse action in breach of those rights.

My guess is that Ashby’s counsel will be using the following section:

Division 5—Other protections

351 Discrimination
(1) An employer must not take adverse action against a person who is an employee, or prospective employee, of the employer because of the person’s race, colour, sex, sexual preference, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.

But here is the real kicker.  THERE IS A REVERSE ONUS OF PROOF in this part of the act.  Slipper will have to PROVE that he did not discriminate against Ashby.  Ashby does not have to prove that he was discriminated against because of one of the outlined reasons.

To be sure, Fair Work Australia can convene a conference between the parties – that will be fun – and can advise the parties that the application would not have a reasonable prospect of success.

In all likelihood, the matter will be dealt with by the Federal Magistrates Court.

Note that Ashby’s substantive allegation of discrimination has not be heard at this stage.
The games continue.

[mantra]

It's obvious you haven't.
No Aussie, if you read the bloody thing you will know that he made many assumptions about Brough and his involvement, this coloured his judgement. Mind you Roxon could have too, but that is just speculation. The assumptions would require him to be a mind reader for them to be able to prove them factual. (After he proves he actually is a mind reader of course)

How else does a Judge make a decision without a jury? He has to add up the circumstantial evidence and make a judgment. It's too bad if you think it's wrong. That is only your opinion - not a fact.

If Mal Brough is brought to account - which he should have been, after he lost his seat and allegedly exploited aborigines with his connection to the mining corporations, it will reinforce the Judge's verdict. Brough is more slippery than Slipper.

MAL Brough faces a federal police investigation into allegations he encouraged former speaker Peter Slipper's staff to leak sensitive diaries in a "political conspiracy" to bring down the government.

The Gillard government has authorised a Queensland Labor MP, Graham Perrett, to refer the matter to Australian Federal Police Commissioner Tony Negus, claiming the Liberals may also have breached laws prohibiting the harming of a public official, an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, or acted as an accessory to the conspiracy.

Labor accuses Mr Brough, a former Liberal minister, of "procuring" the Slipper diaries in breach of sections of the Crimes Act prohibiting unauthorised access to restricted data, an offence carrying a maximum two-year sentence

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/a ... 6542407719