The Daily Wire: Slipper and Ashby saga - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 24 Pages +
  • « First
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24

Slipper and Ashby saga

#461 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 20 October 2013 - 01:47 PM

View Posticey, on 19 October 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

What a lazy cop out on your part Scotto (and I should be fair to HDMC and note that he's remained silent and could well be on rest & rec' for all I'd know).

Nothing about a refusal to accept payment here nor here. Best I could find was reference to "never being given the opportunity" and the timing of involvement by the AFP.

Having looked in vain for substantiation for a dubious claim, I'm now rather less easily persuaded.

Here's an opportunity Mr Slipper. Send me the cheque and I'll forward it promptly to the relevant authority!

Gee Icey, lazy as opposed to what? Take a look at some of your efforts, I'd advise.

I see by now someone has gone to the trouble of citing you the appropriate fact, liberally referred to in the past.

Got any actual ideas now?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#462 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 20 October 2013 - 08:25 PM

View PostHDMC, on 20 October 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Quote

As such it is not appropriate for Finance to provide you with any details regarding these matters or to consider any action on it's part


"Any action" covers repayment.



I'm not an English teacher, but surely the pronoun "it" (used above in a contracted verb) indicates action on the part of the Department of Finance, and makes no reference to action on the part of Pete.

Put as it simply as possible to aid comprehension, "any action" does not refer to repayment by Slipper.

Thus endeth the lesson.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#463 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 20 October 2013 - 08:26 PM

View Postscotto, on 20 October 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

I see by now someone has gone to the trouble of citing you the appropriate fact, liberally referred to in the past.


Still waiting for liberal references, with ever dwindling anticipation.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#464 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:25 AM

View Posticey, on 20 October 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

I'm not an English teacher, but surely the pronoun "it" (used above in a contracted verb) indicates action on the part of the Department of Finance, and makes no reference to action on the part of Pete.

Put as it simply as possible to aid comprehension, "any action" does not refer to repayment by Slipper.

Thus endeth the lesson.


Any action also covers acceptance of payment in line with the Minchin Protocol, hence the last sentence, "To do otherwise could prejudice the outcome of the matter."

Stick your smart arse lesson where the sun don't shine.

You asked for a link, you've got it. Where's your link to say there's nothing to stop Slipper paying the money back?

Put up or shut up.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#465 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 21 October 2013 - 08:19 AM

Any action...... including accepting repayment.

You poor thing Icey.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#466 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 22 October 2013 - 03:58 PM

View Postscotto, on 21 October 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Any action...... including accepting repayment.

You poor thing Icey.


"Action" = "accepting payment"? What an imaginative stretch one takes when it suits the spun yarn.

Was there not anything to substantiate that money could not be deposited or that a cheque would be returned to sender (or was that truly your best shot)?

Posted Image
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#467 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:32 AM

View Posticey, on 22 October 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

"Action" = "accepting payment"? What an imaginative stretch one takes when it suits the spun yarn.

Was there not anything to substantiate that money could not be deposited or that a cheque would be returned to sender (or was that truly your best shot)?

Posted Image


Where's your frigging link, Mouth?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#468 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:43 AM

View Posticey, on 22 October 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

"Action" = "accepting payment"? What an imaginative stretch one takes when it suits the spun yarn.



Keep digging. The Children of the Corn need all the help they can get.

And, yes, supply some evidence of our surmise being correct.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#469 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 25 October 2013 - 10:15 AM

scotto said:

Quote

icey, on 22 October 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

"Action" = "accepting payment"? What an imaginative stretch one takes when it suits the spun yarn.

And, yes, supply some evidence of our surmise being correct


You surmise that accepting payment (with or without prejudice) is proactive. I've nothing to support your semantic argument but look forward to a copy of the cheque "returned to sender".


View PostHDMC, on 19 October 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

How about a link supporting your claim that there's nothing to stop him repaying?


All you've got is a department reluctant to provide details about a legal matter under way, a reference to a lack of consideration regarding action, and Slipper's airy fairy public sooking that he lacked a golden opportunity to make good on his dodgy actions.

Battle on ye defenders of the (once Liberal) underdog. Chin up and keep morale high!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#470 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:30 AM

Samantics are not evidence, Iceth.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#471 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:09 PM

View Posticey, on 25 October 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

You surmise that accepting payment (with or without prejudice) is proactive. I've nothing to support your semantic argument but look forward to a copy of the cheque "returned to sender".


And I look forward to a link verifying your claim that Slipper can repay the money anytime he wants to.




Quote

All you've got is a department reluctant to provide details about a legal matter under way, a reference to a lack of consideration regarding action, and Slipper's airy fairy public sooking that he lacked a golden opportunity to make good on his dodgy actions.



Are you really that dense, or didn't you read the correspondence? Finance clearly states that the matter has not been dealt with under the Minchin Protocol - you know, the scheme where members are allowed to repay wrongly claimed entitlements.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#472 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:46 PM

View PostHDMC, on 25 October 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

And I look forward to a link verifying your claim that Slipper can repay the money anytime he wants to.


You're right, he might be a bit short of cash.

View PostHDMC, on 25 October 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

Are you really that dense, or didn't you read the correspondence? Finance clearly states that the matter has not been dealt with under the Minchin Protocol - you know, the scheme where members are allowed to repay wrongly claimed entitlements.


If you're now arguing that "the matter has not been dealt with under the Minchin Protocol", I'm unable to comment and I don't recall reading any correspondence one way or another. If you have a link to correspondence noting that slippery $$$$ would not be accepted, then you've been a little reticent to provide it.

Standing by.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#473 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 25 October 2013 - 01:03 PM

View Posticey, on 25 October 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

You're right, he might be a bit short of cash.



If you're now arguing that "the matter has not been dealt with under the Minchin Protocol", I'm unable to comment and I don't recall reading any correspondence one way or another. If you have a link to correspondence noting that slippery $ would not be accepted, then you've been a little reticent to provide it.

Standing by.



Posted 20 October 2013 - 10:57 AM


edit - That was the date I posted the info, Icey. If you're still around.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

1

#474 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 14 January 2014 - 04:06 AM

Alex Somlyay, who was very vocal about Peter Slipper's alleged indiscretions is in the spotlight himself, and for far more than the amount that Slipper is credited with "rorting".



Quote

Mr Somlyay appears to have obscured his wife's identity in his list of employed staff. At the top of an internal staffing document, titled ''Monthly Management Report'', the former MP's wife is listed as ''Jennifer Bridget Somlyay''.

But lower on the same page, under a section titled ''electorate employees'', an apparently different woman named ''Jennifer Donovan'' is listed. This second woman, Mrs Donovan, received at least $99,000 for ''electorate office'' work dating as far back as 2003, further documents indicate.

Donovan is the maiden name of Mr Somlyay's wife, according to the former MP's entry in Who's Who in Australia.



SNIP

Asked what work Mrs Donovan did to earn her taxpayer-funded salary, Mr Somlyay said on Monday: ''I've retired, mate … I'm out of it, OK?''

Told about the documents that reveal the tens of thousands of dollars worth of taxpayer-funded payments to his wife, the former MP said: ''No comment … see ya, bye.''



SNIP

In his farewell speech on June 24, 2013, he spoke of his integrity.

''When I was first elected I promised myself that I would never do the things people hate about politics,'' he said. ''People hate deceit and untrustworthiness in their politicians.''

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

1

#475 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 19 January 2014 - 06:17 AM

Now Somlyay claims it was in his wife's contract to work at home - but no sighting of the contract as yet. One wonders if it was also in the contract to obscure her identity as an employee.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 24 Pages +
  • « First
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24


Fast Reply