A question from John Lourens - why do I report the AWU allegations while not reporting other claims of crime
Regarding the matter of the alleged rape currently being investigated by Victoria Police (a matter involving a Federal Labor politician), I am of two minds here.
On the one hand I recognise the merit in your cautious and prudent approach. You will not name the politician because you do not have the means of evaluating the evidence supporting the rape allegations.
But on the other hand, I am having difficulty seeing the difference between the rape allegations being investigated by Victoria Police and the AWU matters being investigated by the same police force. Of course you (and I) will say that you have strong grounds for believing the evidence in the AWU matter is credible and that as a result you have no problem publishing details of the police investigation.
But in arguing this way, I believe you might be providing a perfect justification for the mainstream media's continual refusal to report the Victoria Police investigation into Julia Gillard and the AWU matter. For example, the ABC could equally claim that it is not (yet) convinced and that (at the moment) it is not sufficiently confident to publish details of the investigation by Victoria Police into the AWU matter.
How would you counter such an argument? In your view, what is the essential difference between the AWU matter and the allegations of rape against the Federal Labor politician? It seems to me that the two matters are in many ways similar and that either both matters should be reported on, or both matters should not be reported on. I recognise the very strong possibility that it is I who am missing the essential point here somewhere, and I invite you to put me straight. :-)
John - it really boils down to the weight of evidence. In The AWU Scandal it's overwhelming - you can see every source document and statement/journal transaction showing where money came from and where it went. To believe there was no crime you have to believe that all parties intended for several hundred thousands of dollars to be placed in Wilson's hands. Further, that he was acting in good faith in the asbestos consultancy.
What I know about the other matter is so flimsy as to categorise it, for me, as a 4th hand rumour. I'll watch and wait.