Julia Gillard: They Attack because I am a Woman, Whaaaa!!

Gillard's corruption and dishonesty has to be exposed.

One does have to wonder whether we have an adult in the office of prime minister in Australia or just some silly little girl who makes the claims that it's all because she a women that she is being asked questions about her nefarious dealings in a developing a "slush fund" for a con artist who was her boyfriend at the time. Gillard throws up her hands and states that she knew nothing about this originally because she was "Young and Naive", at the time she was a lawyer and a thirty year old.

Originally ofcourse, she just pooh-poohed everything aside just like every dishonest left winger does as they "feel" that anything they do for the "cause" is excusable, justifiable and correct. She now claims that it was Larry Pickering who started this whole saga when in actual fact it was labour's former Attorney General  Robert McLelland, who first raised it in parliament a few months back. The same AG she sacked from that position to install the child like, pathetic incompetent Roxon, a brazen male hating feminist who has been associated with Sheilla Jeffreys, a radical feminist who attended the SCUM manifesto in Perth Western Australia in 2011 to work out a way of destroying men as lesbians do.

The entire saga has turned into a complete circus as the English media spinner, imported to deal with the vagaries that Gillard has generated herself by lying and cheating her way into office. The entire fraudulent episode in which over $ 400,000 worth of members money was stolen from the AWU (Australian Workers Union), has never been resolved, or recovered and no one has bothered to chase any of this up and no one has been made to answer the appropriate questions and no one has gone to jail over this, NO ONE.

The entire episode demonstrates the dishonesty and conniving actions of unions who have been supporting the Labour party for decades with millions of dollars of membership money and they are not answerable to anyone except themselves. The unions in Australia raise over ONE BILLION DOLLARS every year and no one knows where that money goes or where it is used.

The Labour Party has also demonstrated that they have hidden this, stalled and ignored any effort to find out where that money has gone or made any effort to have it returned. Nothing has been done to find out the real culprits because GILLARD'S name is associated with it and they have covered this up and buried it for the fear of exposing the criminal activities of the Union movement in AUSTRALIA.

GILLARD NEEDS TO RESIGN as she is tainted by this circus of thievery and dishonesty. Someone has to pay and the people who covered it up exposed. It is the way the law is supposed to work but in this case, it's the Labour Party covering themselves as way too many of those dishonest, corrupt individuals have been busy doing this for decades and no one wants to know why or how they go about it. Corruption is and has always been rife in unions worldwide because they are answerable to no one. They are above the law. Those criminals have to bought to justice.

Get Lost: Mann and the Mythical Hockey Shtick.

Mann is somewhat upset that someone has actually questioned his manipulation of the facts regarding the Global Warming Hoax, he is ofcourse one of the prime movers of the hysterics pertaining to that. No one should have the temerity to question as scientist of his "calibre", as he is all seeing and all knowing, and science in his view should not be questioned by anyone except the followers of the great AGW hoax. Just to keep the faith and ensure those billions keep rolling in.

The fact that scientists like Mann, Jones and others have continually discouraged, threatened and banned other scientists who have opposing views, appears to be an irrelevance. This is not how science should be encouraged or pursued but it is what they have blatantly done. Check the emails exposed from the UEA releases and read for yourself how these manipulators have conned the public especially when they could not explain why is was so cold. Best thing to do is to hide it and deny it's existence, which is exactly what they did. Snake oil salesman does not even come near to explaining their dishonest and blatantly illegal behaviour. Illegal, because they have used public funding to manipulate the facts.

How dare anyone question Mann and the suspicious hockey stick, which has been completely destroyed by the facts. So now he is suing those that want to expose him.

August 22, 2012 1:15 P.M.

Get Lost

My response to Michael Mann.

By Rich Lowry

So, as you might have heard, Michael Mann of Climategate infamy is threatening to sue us.

Mann is upset — very, very upset — with this Mark Steyn Corner post, which had the temerity to call Mann’s hockey stick “fraudulent.” The Steyn post was mild compared with other things that have been said about the notorious hockey stick, and, in fact, it fell considerably short of an item about Mann published elsewhere that Steyn quoted in his post.

So why threaten to sue us? I rather suspect it is because the Steyn post was savagely witty and stung poor Michael. Possessing not an ounce of Steyn’s wit or eloquence, poor Michael didn’t try to engage him in a debate. He sent a laughably threatening letter and proceeded to write pathetically lame chest-thumping posts on his Facebook page. (Is it too much to ask that world-renowned climate scientists spend less time on Facebook?)
All of this is transparent nonsense, as our letter of response outlines.
In common polemical usage, “fraudulent” doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud. It means intellectually bogus and wrong. I consider Mann’s prospective lawsuit fraudulent. Uh-oh. I guess he now has another reason to sue us.
Usually, you don’t welcome a nuisance lawsuit, because it’s a nuisance. It consumes time. It costs money. But this is a different matter in light of one word: discovery.
If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.
And this is where you come in. If Mann goes through with it, we’re probably going to call on you to help fund our legal fight and our investigation of Mann through discovery. If it gets that far, we may eventually even want to hire a dedicated reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on Mann.
My advice to poor Michael is to go away and bother someone else. If he doesn’t have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two about the law and about how free debate works in a free country.
He’s going to go to great trouble and expense to embark on a losing cause that will expose more of his methods and maneuverings to the world. In short, he risks making an ass of himself. But that hasn’t stopped him before.

Here is why Mann is suing the Review -(Ed)

Football and Hockey

By Mark Steyn

July 15, 2012 6:22 P.M.

Comments

141

In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:

I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.

Apocalypse - Apocaholism.

Pending apocalypse is the endless scream we hear from the hysterics, world round. In order to make ludicrous as well as childish, unfounded claims, just like those religious freaks once did on a constant basis, has now been taken over by the left wing menagerie of lunatics who have actually made the claim that lying or exaggerating the facts, is a normal and accepted practise those misanthropes indulge in.

They "feel" justified, as they do whenever they scream that "the globe is warming and we're all gonna fry and die" hysterics that continuously surfaces from said plotters like Hansen, Gore, Jones, Trenberth et al as well as other apocalyptic screamers of doom and gloom.

Meanwhile we sit back and see exactly how correct they are or were or claimed to be. Let's see, the sun is still shining - check, the grass is still growing - check, the sun still gets up every morning - check. So where, may one ask is all this apocalyptal carnage and destruction those soothsayers keep stating will one day happen, when will it actually take place or are they just hoping or putting it out there just to see who falls for their Apocaholism ?

ADDICTED TO DOOM

Tim Blair – Wednesday, August 22, 2012 (3:03pm)

Matt Ridley on apocaholism:

Over the five decades since the success of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 and the four decades since the success of the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth in 1972, prophecies of doom on a colossal scale have become routine. Indeed, we seem to crave ever-more-frightening predictions—we are now, in writer Gary Alexander’s word, apocaholic. The past half century has brought us warnings of population explosions, global famines, plagues, water wars, oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, falling sperm counts, thinning ozone, acidifying rain, nuclear winters, Y2K bugs, mad cow epidemics, killer bees, sex-change fish, cell-phone-induced brain-cancer epidemics, and climate catastrophes.
So far all of these specters have turned out to be exaggerated. True, we have encountered obstacles, public-health emergencies, and even mass tragedies. But the promised Armageddons—the thresholds that cannot be uncrossed, the tipping points that cannot be untipped, the existential threats to Life as We Know It—have consistently failed to materialize. To see the full depth of our apocaholism, and to understand why we keep getting it so wrong, we need to consult the past 50 years of history.

(Via the GWPF)

Radical Chic and the Hoi Polloi..

It is always refreshing when one comes across an article that demonstrates and explains a little more than one can come up with. Not for the want of not trying, but just a better understanding of the situation. It is a serious condition and one that we all know is blatant and brazen as well as visually obvious but only a few would witness it. These are those people who want to pre-determine the lives of others while nimbly sipping their dry martinis with a touch of extra vermouth. They mingle with those wannabees and their fallow, pro-contemptious individuals, where the world according to those do not include anything requiring menial labour or carrying their own groceries to the car.

The New AA: Dr. Kimball’s Self-Help Program for Disillusioned Liberals

You’re seeing these sad people everywhere these days, especially in large East-and West-Coast urban areas and on college campuses. At parties they alternate between a melancholy, far-away wistfulness and a muttering “why me?”-belligerence. They’re touchy and quick to blame others, and they seem to suffer from night sweats and vague feelings of persecution. Their symptoms worsened suddenly a few days ago when it was announced that Paul Ryan would be joining the Romney ticket as candidate for vice president.
These people are not conservatives. It’s not clear that they’re liberals, exactly, either, though in recent history they have, as it were, caucused with liberals, that is to say, with people who identify themselves as liberals (never mind how illiberal their policies and sentiments happen to be). Above all, however, they are part of the tout le monde: the people who think of themselves as being on the right side of history (corollary belief: they think history has sides and a direction). They go to the right cocktail parties. They have “advanced” (i.e., establishment) attitudes about art, culture, and morals. They are part of that group Harold Rosenberg memorably denominated “the herd of independent minds.”
Tom Wolfe exposed an extreme version of this cohort in his essay on the Black Panthers hosted by Leonard Bernstein in his elegant New York apartment. Wolfe contributed the term “radical chic” to the language to describe the Bernsteins and their wide-eyed guests. What we’re dealing with here is not quite radical (though Obama may in fact be plenty radical himself, the semi-beautiful people who support him are not), nor is it wholly chic. It is a sort of “consensus chic,” though I appreciate the aroma of contradiction the phrase communicates, since that which is genuinely chic exists self-consciously apart from the consensus of hoi polloi.

First time around, these people voted for Obama, giving themselves a little frisson of self-satisfaction when they pulled the lever and, even more, when the emitted condescension about anyone who happened to vote for John McCain — they didn’t encounter such people often, but it always gave them a little thrill of self-satisfaction when they did. It wasn’t long, however, before doubts began to accumulate. The seas didn’t subside, as promised, nor did the unemployment figures. By now, they’re thoroughly depressed. Their man has clearly let them down, and the inadvertent comedy of Joe Biden screaming that Republicans are going to “put y’all back in chains” isn’t helping. Even worse is the news that team R&R, the Romney-Ryan express, is surging among young voters.

Natural Addiction and other circular arguments.

The endless ineptness and brutal irrelevance that the left-wing, newly enhanced self-appointed experts on all things human, never ceases to amaze me. They produce endless variables to account for stupid and moronic behaviour in order to justify base stupidity or hopelessness. The irrelevant and anarchist behaviour of the "Occupy Everything" movement is a fine example of their obvious ignorance and base stupidity. It demonstrated the new mindlock of their generation where everything should be handed to them on a platter and accountability for their actions is to be removed as being some new method of Imperialism or state police control.
This is the level of intelligence those universities are promoting and producing, where the "I want it all and I want it NOW" mantra is their main guideline and the "Give me everything" is not seen as being unreasonable but a claim that they deserve it all without consent or question. It is the way it is.

One wonders if anyone ever comes to grips with their blatant ignorance or the ever more ignorance they demonstrate. One would live in the hope that one day, as they get older, assuming they don't do anything obviously overly stupid, they may actually wake up to the fact that their behaviour can only be found in three year old children and their justification is straight out of a "Confessions of a mass murderer" novel, where everything can be explained away because the appropriate "feelings" can be counted on for justification. Actually a three year old would probably demonstrate to being brighter and smarter.

Peter Hitchens comes across another one of these clones who actually believes in an assumed enhancement, she terms "Natural Addiction", this way this lunatic justifies heroine addicts as being victims and their responsibility is pushed aside as they are determined to be the victim. Not because of their own stupidity, as everyone is well aware of the fact that heroine addiction is a killer waiting to finish it's work. Nope, the poor individual is a victim because that idiot is an addict. I know, circular arguments is their favourite way of expressing their ineptitude and their unwillingness to think anything through is non-existent, just going on "feelings" is sufficient. These type of people are actually capable of breathing, that is only because it's automated.

Victoria’s Secret

…is that she’s confused about what addiction means, and so cannot say anything sensible about it. The Victoria I’m referring to is Ms Victoria Coren, yet another metropolitan clever-dick who has found his or her way on to the comment circuit long before he or she has had time to become gnarled, world-weary etc. Photographs show her as anything but gnarled, despite the fact that she is, I’m told, a distinguished poker player, and consorts with alternative comedians, both of which would certainly gnarl me.

And I would have ignored her indefinitely had she not decided to lecture me, from a very elevated position indeed, on the subject of ‘addiction’. She did this here http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/19/victoria-coren-addiction-dont-be-kind-be-fair?newsfeed=true

in ‘The Observer’ an unpopular Sunday newspaper. But I shall now help her to become a bit more gnarled and world-weary.

It is an odd lecture. If I have properly understood her, she begins by comparing me to the Wolf in ‘Little Red Riding Hood’, thus : ‘On Newsnight, Russell Brand and Peter Hitchens had a pointless row about compassion. They were like Little Red Riding Hood and the wolf (one lustrous-haired and touchingly naive; the other snarling, clawing and evidently harbouring eager thoughts of the severed finger he'd popped in his pocket to eat later).’

Eh? Sometimes you just have to accept that other people’s thought processes are different from your own. I assume I’m not touchingly naïve (thank heaven for that, even if it also means my hair is not lustrous, which indeed it is not). Snarling and clawing? Well, if you didn’t like me, because I have bad opinions and must therefore be a bad person, you might choose to describe reasonable self-defence in these terms. But putting a severed finger in my pocket to eat later? What? Where did that come from?

AS for being ‘pointless’. No serious person can dismiss as ‘pointless’ a public argument about principles which makes others think.

Anyway, it then gets (slightly ) more coherent and to the point. As in : ‘But compassion is irrelevant to the categorising of addiction. Accepting it's an illness doesn't mean you have to care.’

**Oddly enough, I should have thought it did mean exactly that. If someone has fallen ill through no fault of his own, you are rather obliged to care, be sympathetic, be concerned in healing him. That’s why the difference is important. If this person has deliberately, having ignored a thousand warnings, inflicted the wound on himself, you must of course still care about his grief and his wound, but in a significantly different way. This raises another simple point; that those who would use fear of punishment to deter people from self-destruction don’t necessarily lack compassion. They just don’t mix it up with soft-headedness.

Ms Coren is apparently giving up smoking tobacco. Good luck to her, I hope very much she succeeds, as I know in some detail what will probably happen to her if she doesn’t. Many people do give up , though it is obviously extremely hard. The difficulty arises not least because cigarettes are legal, openly on sale in many shops. They are also socially acceptable in many places (such as poker games, and for all I know among alternative comedians). Perhaps that is why, as Theodore Dalrymple says, from his observations of heroin abusers while working as a prison doctor, that it is harder to give up smoking , by some way, than it is to give up heroin.



The remorseless logic, or remorseless something-or-other, continues as follows : ‘They say heroin feels good to begin with. Smoking doesn't. But, if you're a natural addict, you press on.’



**Here we go. Into the argument this curious assertion hops, unexplained, simply stated as if an uncontested fact. ‘If you’re a natural addict, you press on’. How many huge questions does this raise? Who is, and who is not ‘ a natural addict’? How does one test objectively for the presence of this condition in the human body? Do ‘natural addicts’ still fall victim to their ‘natural addictions’ in societies that Ms Coren would no doubt regard as ‘repressive’, that is, ones in which people are taught from their earliest youth to control their urges, to delay gratification and to mistrust pleasure that has not been earned? Would the hundreds of thousands of alleged heroin ‘addicts’ in modern Britain have become ‘addicts’ had we maintained the culture, laws and morals that we had before about 1960?

If these are significant variables, can the phrase ‘natural addict’ have any validity? Human weakness is universal and lies in all of us. Mine is particularly unexciting. I eat too much (not usually fingers, though) . I could stop if I really wanted to. Sometimes I do. I keep it under reasonable control most of the time. But I don’t care enough to get it fully under control. My guess is that it will kill me only very slowly and not too unpleasantly. It’s also unlikely to make me a burden on other people. But the fault is in me, in that I could try harder if I really wanted to. I can’t blame anyone else. I would despise myself if I did.

As for smoking, I think many people start doing it not because of how it feels, but because of how they think it makes them look. The ancient problem of what to do with your hands (and face) in an awkward social situation is solved. The advertisements - when they had them - played quite cleverly on that, getting non-smokers to envy the cool, socially adept, sophisticated person they would become once they began sporting that particular smart packet (don’t believe that isn’t important, especially to women), and lighting that particular brand with a practised flourish. It might make you cough and vomit to start with, but passing through that stage was a necessary step to becoming the new cool you.

Now that it’s socially less acceptable, and often banned in resorts of pleasure, and now that everyone knows how dangerous it is, aren’t quite a lot of ‘natural addicts’ either giving it up or never starting? In which case, how natural were they? The phrase doesn’t really help at all. It’s certainly not the objectively scientific term Ms Coren seems to think it is (because it suits her to think so). As for Heroin users, *nobody*, but *nobody* is ignorant of the risks of this drug, and I believe it takes several goes to reach the stage where you imagine you can’t live without it. So could it be that you just press on because you’re a naturally selfish, thoughtless, inconsiderate little toad who places his own pleasure above all other considerations (as most of us are, when the mood takes us)? How much nicer, though, to be called a ‘natural addict’ . It takes away the crucial aspect, that you might yourself have been involved in choosing whether or not to poke a sharp ( and quite possibly dirty) piece of metal into your body and using it to pump an illegal poison into your bloodstream - which you already knew was a stupid thing to do.

Ms Coren continues :’Once you're hooked, it still doesn't feel good, but (and here's where we fall in with our junkie cousins) it now makes you feel normal. QED: if you have to take something to feel normal, it doesn't matter if it's a fag or a needle or a Nurofen, you're not well.’

**Once again, this is an assertion, and a self-serving one as well. Ms Coren was born, I think , in 1973. Long before she could talk or read, it was established beyond all doubt that smoking was terribly dangerous to your health, and particularly to the health of women. Why, even in my Jurassic childhood I can remember a pair of huge scary billboards outside Portsmouth Town Hall (circa 1962) with the legend ‘Ashes….to Ashes’. The first showed an ashtray with a lit cigarette. The second portrayed a large urn of human ashes marked ‘RIP’ .

She *must* have known what she was doing. I have never quite been able to get out of my mind this fact about many members of my generation. I think the problem with them (the smell of smoke has always repelled me, and my sense of smell has always been very strong. My attempts to start were foredoomed) was that the coolness, the sexual signal (the smoker is surely more worldly, more humorous, more available than the non-smoker, as Hollywood has for years been at pains to suggest) , the ability to satisfy the craving for something to taste without the risk of getting fat, the membership of a club of sophisticates, simply overrode all the warnings, of a peril which seemed so distant anyway. What if we might one day die? We all have to die of something. Ho ho. Well, I know a bit more than I did then about what cancer does to the human frame towards the end, and it’s my view that we might make a bit more of this in propaganda. It’s quite important, it turns out, which something you die of, not least because dying can take quite a while these days.

But of course the advertisements and the general social acceptance made each decision to give up an individual, solitary, slightly priggish one, and each decision to continue a collective, socially acceptable, even cool one. I think that has begun to change among educated, professional people, partly thanks to office smoking bans, partly thanks to advertising bans and pub and restuarant bans, partly because that selfish generation have children of their own and a) want to see them grow and b) don’t want to give them a dreadful example. In a small but limited way ( necessary because it's very hard to ban something in wide use which has always been legal) the threat of the law has helped to reduce this scourge. In the case of heroin and cannabis, already illegal, we have a much wider scope for preventive, deterrent action.

Ms Coren declares : ‘Unlike Nurofen, the addict's substance is both treating and creating the agony.’

**Agony? Isn’t that putting it a bit high?

Ms Coren again’ So every smoker/junkie, however desperate (** ‘desperate’. This overused word needs to be examined every time it’s employed. It has suffered severe inflation. In this case, doesn’t it actually mean , at most ‘ desirous’ . In which case, can’t the person involved control the desire? Of course he can. But he doesn’t want to) ‘…to keep going, wishes he had never started. If you saw someone repeatedly smashing his arm against a wall, 40 times a day, unable to stop, would you say he was a self-indulgent hedonist? Or would you just know he was ill?

**My reply. It’s all very well saying you wish you had never started. But why? Where is the surprise trick ending? What didn’t they tell you? If you really wished that, you actually wouldn’t have started. You wanted to start. You did so knowing this would happen. You wanted to. You didn’t care. Likewise, if you really wished to stop, you would stop. The true desire to stop is the heart of all abstinence programmes, as everyone knows. If someone got pleasure or other advantage from the sort of self-harm described, then yes, hedonism could explain it.

Then I get :’ Fear not, Peter Hitchens; that doesn't make you Pollyanna.’

**No, indeed. No danger of that .It’s Ms Coren I’m calling Pollyanna, and Mr Brand too.

Ms Coren : ‘You can still hate and blame the patient.’

**Who said I hate these people? I’m rather famously (the religion is famous, not me) not allowed to hate people by my religion, a religion Ms Coren may know little about and might well, given her generation and milieu, despise. I don’t presume to know (as she presumes to know so much of my mind) , so I am happy to be corrected if I am mistaken. I can loathe actions, but never the people that do them. As for the use of the word ‘patient’, once more an assertion not backed by evidence, this simply assumes a conclusion which is not proved or agreed. How could I blame a patient? But I can blame a wilful criminal, and I do.

Ms Coren ‘No need to feel compassion’. **On the contrary. But compassion is not the same as indulgence of wrong actions. It may actually require a serious attempt to deter or punish those wrong actions.

IS OUR PRIME MINISTER A CROOK?:

Larry Pickering as well as the general population appear to think so as the polling suggests. Labelled as the worst prime minister in history, Julia Gillard as well as Slater & Gordon have a lot to answer.

The entire episode smacks of corruption, greed and illegal activities which no one has come to answer. Not completely anyway, one wonders who is doing the covering up on this disaster and why there is a prime minister in Australia whose is tainted with illegal activities, illegal manipulation of the law and questionable responses where she continually makes the claim that she has answered the question when she has not ever come near to explaining this entire menagerie of fraud and corruption.

Someone has to pay for this and that someone is Julia Gillard as one could assume that she is covering up as much as possible to keep herself in that position.

IS OUR PRIME MINISTER A CROOK?:

Julia wandered aimlessly around her Abbottsford home. She had been unemployed for almost six months since she was sacked from Slater & Gordon. Her money had run out and her boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, had run off. Those lost six months were to mysteriously disappear from her CV.
If only things could have been different. She now knew she could never practise law again and anyway her Practising Certificate was soon to expire.
Julia had put her neck on the line for that bastard Wilson. He had promised her the world and she got peanuts from their clever scam. He was safe back in Perth with his wife, Francine, and the boys. She was left alone and with nothing.
The truth was Julia had knowingly help set up the infrastructure for Wilson’s money laundering. With the help of another Slater & Gordon Partner, Bernard Murphy, she had drawn up the documents that allowed Wilson to open a fraudulent account through which the extorted funds were to be laundered.
She had set up a Power of Attorney for Wilson to act on behalf of his friend Ralph Blewitt in laundering the funds. Wilson and she were living in the Kerr Street home bought with the stolen funds including a mortgage arranged in the name of Slater & Gordon’s Senior Partner, Jonathon Rothfield.
“Fall guy” Blewitt was blissfully unaware of the mortgage.
When the Kerr Street home was sold the money vanished. Blewitt, the oblivious owner, did not see a cent.
Meanwhile, back in Perth, Wilson was living the life of Riley. He had bought a restaurant called “Rumbrellas” and had spent $330,000 on renovations. Unfortunately, although Wilson was a dab hand at stealing, his business acumen was appalling. “Rumbrellas” was soon in liquidation. Wilson was broke.
He asked his offsider Ralph Blewitt for a $20,000 loan. Blewitt refused. Wilson suggested to Blewitt that one phone call to Big Bill Ludwig and Blewitt would never work again. That wasn’t true of course but Blewitt loaned him the money anyway. The loan was never repaid.
Back at Abbottsford, Julia called a friend, Carol Pyke, who had ALP connections in Victoria and asked her if she would move in to help defray the costs. She did and Julia eventually sold her half of the Abbottsford property.
Despite her known involvement in the extortion/money laundering affair, Julia was still determined to enter Parliament. But each time she sought pre-selection she was thwarted by her own Party. Centre Unity faction members of the ALP insisted Julia Gillard, of the Socialist Left faction, was an unsuitable candidate because of the known scandal.
[Many years later, power broker, Mark Abib, was to negotiate Gillard swapping factions to allow her to become Prime Minister... and without reference to Caucus.]
The focus is now back on Slater & Gordon. Although a listed company they still refuse to come clean on what went on. Why was their client, the AWU, not alerted to the false accounts? Why was the AWU not told of the funds, the laundering, the house, the conveyancing, the mortgage, the profit from the sale of the house?
They refuse to release the conveyancing details of the Kerr Street property claiming privilege. Yet there is no privilege associated with conveyancing.
It was rightfully AWU members’ money. It was Slater & Gordon’s Partners Gillard and Murphy and senior Partner Rothfield who set the whole thing up!
Convicted Partners of Keddies Law firm, owned by Slater & Gordon, have outwitted creditors of millions, according to a report in tomorrow’s Sydney Morning Herald.
Disclosure of Freedom of Information documents is being thwarted by the Victorian Police. “Too busy”, they say.
They have sat on the application for two months and say it may be another two months. Regulations demand a period of no longer than 30 days.
In the meantime “Pickering Post” is being constantly attacked by hackers using DDoS.
They may silence us for a while but the truth will out.
Much more to come.

How To Cook the Books on Global Warming by Dr Phil Jones, Prof James Hansen and Tom Rigley.

The temperature record is an honest and real representation of the climate, no really. They stake their reputation on it.

 Global Warming Dishonesty and Caprice

Whenever you catch anyone in an act of dishonesty, be it a child with it's hand in the cookie jar or the smell of weed in someone's bedroom. You automatically know it has to be dealt with, swift, clean and honestly. That is the way it is.
When people notice that some scientists have deliberately and dishonestly exaggerated  temperature results and skewed the outcome to suit their own purposes, they should face some level of accountability and be held accountable for those lies and distortions. The predominately left wing thinking process does not work in that way ofcourse.
They will turn a blind eye to dishonesty, lies, cheating and law breaking (think Occupy Everything, with rape, assaults, carnage, thievery etc) while still demanding that those action are legitimate and their "intentions" were honourable. The rabble prefer ignorance and lies to facts and honesty. It is the way they think. Stupid is as stupid does, should in reality be their calling card and their main slogan.

Never before published paper on UHI and siting – Goodridge 1987

Mind you, this is data that Jim used prior to the big range of adjustments that have been applied by NCDC. Jim provides all that data in the paper. It might be interesting to compare the data then and now to see what has been done to it. Another important distinction of note is that this paper was presented over a year before NASA’s Dr. James Hansen went before the Senate in June 1988, and touted his science and model predictions, deeming it so solid that they had to turn off the air conditioning in the hearing room for “theatrical effect”.
Figure 6 and 7 on page 10 are also instructive:

 
When comparing the temp. results with other factors like population, as compared to open areas where these stations should be, we have an entirely different picture. We can see clearly how the population effects the temperature in a big way. It can be easily shown when comparing population growth with temperature increase. That would ofcourse be a given, as more tarmac, concrete and buildings will store more heat than an open paddock.

Plus answers to yesterday’s Fun puzzle: Name these official stations.
Given that California Governor Jerry Brown has recently setup a website at the governor’s office basically telling skeptics to “shut up” I thought this would be a good time to publish this.
This is a paper that was presented at a climate conference by Jim Goodridge, former State Climatologist of California, titled Population and Temperature Trends in California at the Pacific Climate Workshop, in Pacific Grove, CA March 22-26, 1987.

 Bingo, below, the liars and exaggerators are being continually exposed and nothing and no one in position of power is even bothering to bring them to account. What the hell is going on here. Is everyone complicit in this hoax ?

More information on this link.


Memorandum submitted by Richard S Courtney (CRU 01)

In a press release at

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_cru_inquiry.cfm

your Select Committee "announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)."

Here are the graphs to demonstrate the effect of population growth and temperature.