Nine years ago, a young man allegedly had consensual sex with a 15-year-old minor. The boy didn’t made a complaint to police. It’s grubby — and illegal if charged and proven — but is it news? Now? Is it the lead on the ABC’s nightly current affairs program?
It seems anything to do with former Parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper, his former adviser James Ashby, and the sewer of sexual innuendo around the pair, is worthy of a headline. There’s no bottom to this barrel.
Slipper received the claims and sent them to Queensland Police. Police are now, according to 7.30, “in the process of determining whether any person authorised to do so wishes to make a complaint”.
The court will decide Slipper’s guilt or innocence on the harassment allegations; a judge and perhaps a jury would decide on the character of Ashby. In the meantime they want us to decide who’s telling the truth.
What Slipper and Ashby are clearly guilty of already is manipulating the media to suit their cases. And journalists are happy to play along, eager to report the next sordid text message, Facebook status update and leaked dirt file.
That two servants of the public are destroying each other in the media is unfortunate. That it goes to the heart of Canberra and public trust in government — and is splashed across front pages and program promos as a result — is very unfortunate indeed.
Are you kidding? Slipper didn’t start this episode. What’s the man
supposed to do? Sit back and let the combined might of Ashby, the
LNP and News Ltd destroy him and the government?
You might note that this isn’t being splashed across the front page of
the Daily Telegraph which tells you all you need to know of its agenda.
I would hesitate at any time to defend Peter Slipper
But I fail to see how in this instance he has done anything wrong.
If he had not passed on the information then he would be seriously at fault.
This sordid affair seems to be more and more a conspiracy to oust Slipper
The culprits? Well look no further than who has the most to gain
Yes it is sordid but in this case Slipper seems to be the one with clean hands
It goes to the character of the person (and those with whom he has associated in this affair?) trying to do away with Slipper’s career (for what that’s worth now), in this manner, doesn’t it?
But would this be as “newsworthy” if not for the “Gaytime flavour”?
Meanwhile what aren’t we being told about the habits and actions of others of those we have elected to represent us – as if these two are the only ones with “duelling skeletons” – that we usually get a view of as it seems “occasion dictates”, as prescibed by the media – in their symbiotic relationship with their “sauces”?
Bring them all out so we can make our judgments re their suitability for the job?
There are some really poorly chosen metaphors in the second paragraph of this article.
I agree with The Pav.
This trashing of the reputation of the Parliament and the Public Servants working in it could have been avoided had Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey, Mal Brough and a seemingly never-ending cast had been willing to respect the democratic process and the decision of the Australian people at the last election.
The whole fiasco started when it was decided to force Peter Slipper out of Parliament because he was willing to accept the job of Speaker of the House and give a little bit more security to the legally elected minority Labor Government led by Julia Gillard. The Liberal/National Coalition in Opposition were unhappy that they had not been given government and loudly, publicly and frequently stated so. They have spent almost every minute since the last election attempting to remove the government from power. A government that (as a gay left leaning man) personally and politically dissatisfies me, but a government that the Australian Electorate voted into power.
At what point is someone in the media going to draw all of the points together and start to actually DEMAND answers from the people who started it all? Where are the questions to Tony et al about why they are willing to attempt to ignore the decision of the 15 million or so individual voters at the last election, simply because they don’t like the decision.
When will there be editorials demanding that they address the claims instead of hiding behind all of the blather about ‘Due Process’ and ‘Fairness’. ‘Due Process’ and ‘Fairness’ only seem to suit them when they have something to hide.