Would some legal brain out there please enlighten me: Archbishop Wilson has said “However, at this time, I am entitled to exercise my legal rights and to follow the due process of law. “Since that process is not yet complete, I do not intend to resign at this time.” He said if it was unsuccessful, he would offer his resignation.
In OUR country is this quote right under our laws?
What I do see is that once again the PM is being led by the nose in foreign policy (Peter Gogarty demanding appeal to Pope – an independent State – the Vatican), and the government is being managed emotionally by the same person.
The Law should take its course and then we will see the results: what should/should not happen – NOT what Mr Gogarty demands.
If Bill Shorten can be held accountable for pre-Parliament Union matters (he entered Parliament 2007) can the same apply to Malcolm for the disasters of the banking system, where he was a luminary (he entered Parliament 2004). And while we are at it – how about the problems of the NAB now that Mike Baird is a senior Executive?
Just a thought – was this why the PM did not want to have a Royal Commission?
I wouldn’t vote for Pauline Hanson in a “month of Sundays” (old expression) but in one quote I do agree with her: Why is the taxpayer paying for the Royal Commission into Banks and Financial Establishments? Why aren’t they – the Banks and Financial sector – paying for the Royal Commission? And if they can be made to pay it could give a lead for future Royal Commissions.
And now it’s another politician claiming right to privacy…this time it’s Gladys about one of her MPs.
Gladys – and the rest of the politicians – don’t you realise that when you take my taxes – taxpayer funding – you are responsible to me and to the electorate for your actions. .. Along with the rorts, the cars, the big pay there is a downside – you lose your right to privacy and it’s time you realised it.
Politicians – GROW UP.
Reading Letters to the Editor SMH 16 Jan about the Margaret Court episode…What comes through to me is that most contributors and Margaret Court should, indeed are entitled to, right to free speech – BUT only when it conforms to their requirements/views in public speeches. Raises the question- is this free speech.
The question of the day – to continue the hundreds of years old tradition of the Seal of the Confession in the Catholic Church? What next when this matter is settled to the satisfaction of some anti-everything-religious members of Parliament? The sacred trust between lawyer and client? the confidentiality between doctors and patients? or God forbid! – the right to keep confidential the matter between journalists and sources. It will be interesting to see what eventuates in these matters – we have seen in the past the right of journalists to keep confidential their sources and no doubt we will “progress” in the other matters.
Poor WikiLeaks whistleblower Chelsea Manning – released from gaol after seven years (SMH 18 May) for doing much the same thing – disclosure of intelligence matter – as the President of the USA. But Donald will tough it out and build up his ego without doing time in any form.