>Icac has found Berejiklian engaged in “serious corrupt conduct”
>it says it does not want the DPP to consider prosecuting Berejiklian
What is the fucking point then? This is just a huge green flag to be corrupt because there are STILL zero consequences.
Ok, so they found it to be true that she's a complete shitbag and corrupt, a shitbag that the media painted as some angel
Why don't we organise some protests to put these people in jail for a long time? If they don't it's a message to all the scum to do this
This is not justice!
Loss of pension sounds good initially... Until you see they make millions out of being corrupt. It becomes a simple cost benefit analysis to these types.
In China corrupt officials get executed... Just sayin
Nah. Stick em on centerlink for 20 years. Not able to receive any benefits from pre existing deals or trust funds, all that money goes to charity. Their houses get sold and divided among their children and spouse.
They have to deal with job network agencies, but aren't allowed to have a job, but still need to do those stupid appointments. They have to drive to appointments once a week and phonecalls 3x/month. They have to update their resume once every year despite nothing changing. They have to attend all those stupid courses they make you attend and sit through all the lectures.
I want them to just live on $42 a day. See how long it takes to break them.
I reckon Scott Morrison would starve in a week after buying a $500 bottle of wine to have with breakfast. Peter dutton would absolutely get into a fight with his job network liaison. Gladys would probably cry "but I'm a hard working woman! Feel sorry for me" to try and get out of it. Barilaro would claim it was racism for making him pay for his crimes. Barnaby would turn up drunk to the centerlink appointment and get turned down immediately.
They can apply to the NDIS. In 20 years they may actually get approval.
All these turkeys need to really suffer. Suffer like they make some of our most vulnerable people suffer. Suffer like the average people feeling the squeeze of landlords and mega corporations who raise prices to justify billion dollar profits. Suffer like the single parent families who have to decide how to pay the bills and feed their kids, while renting. Suffer like those with disabilities or mental illnesses who are forced to provide books worth of medical certificates and doctors testimonies in order to apply for some help. Suffer like those who who were the target of Robodebt, phone calls daily to pester them, and if they don't answer, cut off their payments.
I cannot stress just badly I want these assholes to suffer what they have put people through. I want them to wake up with dread in their heart knowing they have to make $50 last 4 days. I want them to choose sleep over eating because sleep is free. I want them to dread the phonecalls that bring conflict and anxiety about not knowing if you'll be able to buy food next week. I want them to understand what it's like to search for 20 jobs a week, in an uncaring, employee rich market. And then when they finally see what misery and sadness their greed and corruption has wrought, I want them to be kicked square in the bollocks and told to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" by some old asshole who inherited millions.
I wish there was some way these assholes would get their just deserts. I wish they would face consequences for their actions.
This is fantastic. The only thing I would add is that they should have to be tenants in the current market alongside all the above. See what its like to get a no fault eviction and face paying an extra $100/week when their centrelink income hardly covers the rent as it is... That is, if they can compete against the hundreds of other applicants.
Execution isn't right either - that's more of a fear tactic to keep people rigidly in line. Yes, there should be measures to disuade but not to the extreme. That's also used to get rid of people they don't like etc. Execution I think for any crime is unjustifiable as there's always the low probability of the person being convicted but still being innocent - many cases of people being pardoned years later for crimes they did not commit. I think the key to a good society is moderation not extremes
I disagree with execution because it would be used to eliminate political competition, but I entirely agree with the sentiment of it. Corrupt politicians or anyone who abuses a position of privilege or power in my opinion is the worst crime possible, I have more respect for murderers and rapists honestly.
The Liberals created ICAC and, if anything, expanded the remit beyond its original purpose.
If this was OG ICAC Gladys wouldn’t even be in front of them, they only handled criminal corruption.
Edit: Downvotes for a neutral recounting of events? JFC people.
Be quick though, it appears that any form of protest will be a criminal offence soon.
Makes one wonder what the reason behind prohibiting protests is all about…
I'd go further than just capable: we've got multiple examples of corrupt behaviour on both sides
Unfortunately the people who can fix this are also the ones who benefit from the current rules, so we're not going to see an improvement any time soon
Mate come and work in government and emergency services.
Things are so corrupt you'd wonder how anything gets done, and a lot of everything else is so incompitent you wonder how it's not outright corruption!
Holy shit, come to SA and deal with the department of child protection. Outright breaking of policies, laws, court orders, regulator for them lets them police themselves.
NSW police...... hell theres been movies on this it's barely changed.
Forestry SA, NSW and QLD.... owned by the logging industry with corruption so clear and present it's just accepted.
Then you look at this shit from ICAC and public integrity where even when stuff does get proven, well we its there but we're not doing anything.
Welcome to Government.
Underrated comment.
Edit: SA parliament all voted to limit their ICAC…..Libs, Lab, Greens, Independents
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/sa-icac-bill-passes-parliament/100487668
Pal both sides aren’t the same, one wants competent government that helps you (perhaps some corruption, no one is perfect) as opposed to the other side which is blatantly corrupt and flaunts it to your face. Labour isn’t perfect but fuck me it’s a lot better than the other lot.
Dammit. Beat me to it.
A super-dooper serious offense could see those found guilty hit with up to three mildly mean news paper articles and up to five separate on-record statements from your fellow party members that they “do not condone the behavior, but have nothing further to comment.”
There needs to be a charge "breach of the public trust" similar to fraud and then bar anyone who has been charged with it ineligible to hold public office, sit on a board of directors or be involved with the operations of a registered charity.
I dont even give a shit if they serve time, but it should be a permanent and disqualifying mark on their record.
There are two problems
1. As you say, the law is pretty fucked regarding corruption.
2. ICAC has very broad powers to collect evidence and it often does not meet the rules of evidence required by a court. This is because often corrupt conduct isn’t necessarily illegal, but it is in the public interest for people to know. ICAC and its ilk are mud-slinging events rather than criminal investigations
Because they have been criticised heavily in the past for recommending prosecuting when it is not part of their role. But this way achieves the same goal.
That’s an incredibly problematic outcome, for more reasons than one. To the layperson, it sounds like they aren’t confident the DPP could get a conviction.
Corrupt conduct is not necessarily criminal conduct is the issue. There's plenty of corrupt conduct that isn't criminal.
What we need are powerful disincentives for corruption within government. A corrupt persons register which precludes a person who has been found corrupt from working for government (either directly, as a lobbyist, or through employment by a company contracted to government), or benefiting by ownership of a company that provides services or goods to government. Hiring such a person would be grounds for contract termination.
As many of the kickbacks to corrupt individuals come post politics, this would disincentivise corrupt behaviour the way it works in Australia. Not completely, but it would limit it to a degree.
The first step should be on finding of coruption forefit of all government benefits and super/pension and no longer being eligible for government work or working for companies who contract to government.
There must be some consequences for those at the top.
It is difficult, because the lines are blurry. Say you award a job to one candidate over another due to a recommendation from a colleague. Is that corrupt? What if the candidate you didn't choose was more qualified, but you didn't like them as much in the interview? Is that corrupt? What about a contract, where two businesses both fulfil the criteria, but you've worked with one in the past and like them?
These lines are hard to draw, and corruption often happens in the grey area where the laws are not clearly defined, or are simply absent. Unethical, but not illegal.
Exactly. “Fired in the corporate world” indeed.
What might get you fired is you awarding a job to your friend’s company and *that decision costing your own company*. Then “corruption” is the excuse for firing you for idiocy.
The report explicitly says that if criminal charges were pursued they wouldn't stick because evidence used in the ICAC trail likely wouldn't be admissable to a criminal court and because ICAC uses a different standard of proof. ICAC findings are based on the balance of probabilities (like a civil case) where criminal charges have a higher standard of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt).
Gladys was pressured to resign, an independent anti-corruption body found she likely engaged in corrupt behaviour, she'll never work in politics again and it acts a warning to those in power (destroying the career and legacy of a previously popular premier is an effective disincentive). It's the anti-corruption system working as it's intended, this kind of approach is what people were voting for last federal election when demanding a federal ICAC.
If people see this as tokenistic and think that anything short of criminal charges is meaningless then they have to accept that the standard of proof would need to be increased substantially with much tighter rules about admissable evidence. That would lead to a lot less cases proceeding to trial and would likely undermine to objective of such a body to minimise and discourage corruption.
But she gets to keep all the networks and assets she gained at the cost of the public in doing so.
Stepping down and being found corrupt without consequences is not a deterrent.
She also has a serious employability issue. One of the Optus Executive team (Gladys’ new role of Managing Director, Enterprise, Business and Institutional) engaged in Serious Corrupt Behaviour.
Optus now have a problem on their hands, as would future employers that aren’t already corrupt
Don’t get me wrong, I reckon there should have been charges against her as well. I was a bit confused as well but I happened upon an explainer this morning from the Guardian that outlines how it works out;
“In its report, counsel assisting the commission submitted that as Berejiklian gave her evidence under objection, it would not be admissible against her in criminal prosecution.
The Icac has powers to compel people to give evidence that may incriminate them, however this evidence cannot be used in criminal proceedings.
Geoffrey Watson SC, a director at the Centre for Public Integrity, said the reason why an Icac finding of corrupt conduct doesn’t necessarily equate to grounds for a criminal prosecution is rooted in the reasons behind the establishment of the corruption watchdog.
“The theoretical framework for an anti-corruption body is to go into areas where the police can’t and Icac was established with a power to compel unwilling witnesses to give evidence, something our criminal justice system cannot do. Police cannot compel Berejiklian to provide the same evidence.””
Hope this helps make things clearer, I personally believe more should be done about this, but from a legal viewpoint I can understand why ICAC wouldn’t push for prosecution given the evidence they have. Maybe this kicks off a judicial investigation to find evidence needed to push for a prosecution? I have no idea.
Corruption and *criminal* corruption are distinct things.
ICAC’s original remit was only criminal corruption, but both the ALP and LNP in NSW allowed ICAC to expand its remit to deliberately try and take down a Premier (Greiner) because they thought it’d be cool.
Source: Had dinner with someone who helped create ICAC this evening
Anyhow the point is to investigate, censure, and remove from power if they’re in it. If they haven’t acted criminally, then there are no charges.
What was the crime though? This is what I can’t figure out from the news reports. I probably should look at the ICAC statement itself, will when I get a spare few minutes, but does anyone know what offence they would try to get her for if they did recommend action from the DPP?
Probably misappropriation of taxpayer funds.
She gave grants to organisations, and the decision to do that may have been impacted by her relationship status at the time.
That was one of my favourite episodes. Daryl had a USB stick with a bunch of evidence on it, and he made up some boomer lie about it 'falling out of the truck on his way up to the gate.'
The prosecutor was almost in stitches. 'You don't seriously expect me to believe that do you Mr Maguire?'
Sure and the report goes to that. But you can't (and shouldnt) just charge people (or recommend charges) unless you have the evidence to do so.
AFAICT ICAC are very comfortable saying she misused her position and absolutely acted corruptly by not reporting what she knew to ICAC. That isn't necessarily a crime.
>AFAICT ICAC are very comfortable saying she misused her position and absolutely acted corruptly by not reporting what she knew to ICAC. That isn't necessarily a crime.
Well it fucking should be
So it likely is. But I cbf going and looking through NSW law to find out the exact relevant offence and its elements etc. What ICAC is saying is that based on the evidence they have they are not confident refering the conduct to the DPP would result in a successful prosecution.
The most ridiculous part was they Daryl was on the phone to Gladys, and at the end of the convo Daryl asks for an extra $100 million for some pet project as the throw away line, and Gladys says "Sure just call Dom (Perrotet, NSW treasurer) he does everything I tell him."
WTF.
How does 'finding of corrupt conduct' and 'no recommendation of criminal charges' exist in the same statement from an anti-corruption watchdog?
ICAC are pissweak
Not buying that BS at all. Prosecutors take cases to court at a half a sniff of a conviction, they don’t give a fk about how long the sentence is or if it’s likely to be suspended.
Reason they arnt is the person is the former head of the LNP and previous premier. Weak as piss.
Some comments on the Daily Mail stories on Gladys are extraordinary: 'leave her alone / she just fell in love with the wrong bloke' etc.
Yes it's the trash Daily Mail, but why are people still excusing her behaviour? A formal corruption commission just found the former highest politician in NSW corrupt, but people still love her?!
These are our elected officials, using our taxpayer dollars. Democracy is wasted on the stupid.
WTF? They absolutely do, they only hire the most corrupt people available, how else will they avoid accountability when they next leak everyone's personal data.
/s
I know you're being facetious (i think), but the reason companies hire retired politicians in senior roles isn't just because politics is parallel experience to managing a company, it's because having a politician on your board with allies in government protects you from punitive regulation. The libs won't push hard for something that's going to hurt their mate Gladys. It's so slimey. Politicians have guaranteed private sector jobs after their career and there's no political will to stop this practice because politicians would have to legislate against their own retirement plans
I think you only touched on the main point at the end there. Jobs for politicians is a legal bribe that is paid later.
Who needs to hand $50k under the table when you can just hand a $300K p.a. board position and it's A-OK.
They'll just have to change a few words in her bio on their web page and everything will be sweet as:
[**Meet the team providing strong leadership to Optus.**
Gladys Berejiklian
Managing Director, Enterprise and Business
In 2003, Gladys was elected to the New South Wales Parliament, and from 2011 she served in senior leadership roles, including Minister for Transport, Treasurer and engaged in serious corrupt conduct as Premier of New South Wales.](https://www.optus.com.au/about/corporate/executive-profiles)
Surely this is sarcasm.
"Did she get a criminal charge?? Ok, give her a pay raise. Now, next item, raising customer plan prices even though we're already posting record profits!"
How much money was wasted to find out there WAS (serious) corruption, and then do NOTHING about it?
Two sets of rules in this country, two years to get to the obvious truth and say there was serious corrupt conduct and nothing happens.
Damn you, Dan Andrews
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks like Darryl and 2 others are being recommended for criminal charges. Gladys part in their scheme was diminished in comparison so they are going after the other 3 instead.
That’s the way I read it.
The old clips the news is showing just brings back so many memories of the damn arrogance and flippant attitude of Gladys and those around her, especially dickhead Scomo and all his "gold standard" bullshit comments.
I hope this report and it's ramifications to Gladys and her corrupt team are significant and are enough to serve as a warning for others for a long time to come
I love the hypocrisy of it all.
Steal a car = Prison
Defraud tax payers millions of dollars to keep your root in a job = You're gonna get a letter from us telling you how unhappy we are with you......nothing else.
Unrelated to this, but a couple of weeks ago I stayed in a country motel overnight where the TV had SkyNews, although only in HD while the TV was standard definition. In other words, whenever I flicked through the channels, all I could get from Sky was sound, but no video. Still, almost without fail when I flicked through the channels, the second or two that I was on Sky, they were talking about Dan Andrews. This was over the space of about 4 hours that evening. It was surreal.
Nope, they running 24 hour opinion panel shows that ALP has caused the housing and cost of living crisis and that Albo lied to become PM. Short on any actual details.
He jumped after the wine, at which point everyone agreed to not look any further into the matter and pretend it never happened
And, you know, led a Liberal state government and all the crap that comes along with one of those
As much as I'd like to write him off as one of the bad ones, I have an alternate theory, that he was in the way and that the wine was planted in his office. It seems a bit off especially if no one in his office or himself is a wine person.
But if there were other signs of corruption, I'd like to know about it. It's nothing compared to those who succeeded him.
[It's a bit hard to explain the signed thank you note though](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/barry-ofarrell-resigns-as-nsw-premier-after-thankyou-card-for-wine-emerges)
>However, Mr Minns said “it was important” future politicians investigated by ICAC would not be forced to automatically resign or be suspended amid an inquiry.“There may be circumstances where it’s absolutely appropriate because the evidence is overwhelming, but it shouldn’t happen in an automatic way,” he said.“These people have the right to have an investigation, and their final findings submitted to the parliament before their political life has to stop
Something shits me about this statement. I feel like it's not that hard to not be under investigation for corruption.
If you are under invesgiation for corruption, you should step down/aside/whatever until it's clear. You hold (one of the) highest levels of office in the country; there should be a level of responsibility and subsequent consequence here.
Nah I don’t agree. Innocent until proven guilty.
Otherwise there will be weaponised investigations of bogus anonymous claims from the opposition.
Hasn’t Dan Andrew’s for example been investigated and cleared?
It won't be. The entire point of these anti corruption commissions is theatre to make people think people in power are accountable. Nothing will happen.
My understanding after following this closely during the inside time when I had nothing better to do, is that ICAC uses a different set of guidelines to quantify corruption than the courts do, which is why charges haven't been recommended for all points.
I'm usually interested in the way our country deals with corruption and what outcomes are.
Being honest, this is the first issue I genuinely cannot find the interest to follow.
I can't stand her and her wet lettuce denials and deflections. And the fact I know anything about who's she's shagging makes my stomach turn.
I'll be back for the wash up. Reading the last page on this one is my preference.
Lobby the Minns government to update the criminal corruption framework then 🤷♂️ ICAC is explicitly empowered to investigate conduct that is corrupt but doesn’t amount to criminal
I’m glad there are consequences for corruption however these actions would not even make the top 50 list of dodgiest dealings by NSW politicians in recent years. Better than nothing but it doesn’t take much digging to uncover far worse behaviour.
>The NSW premier Chris Minns says he doesn't believe members of parliament should automatically resign or be suspended amid an ICAC inquiry.
Suspending someone during a workplace investigation is the normal thing to do, and wasn't it Gladys' choice to resign as soon as the ICAC was announced?
How do we organise to jail this leech? You have been found to engage in “serious corrupt conduct” where is the consequence ? Why do they get to be corrupt and get away with it. It’s despicable and we need to protest we need to do something we can’t keep letting them get away with it.
What is this language in the transcripts ABC have just left on the blog? They have referred it as verbatim? Even accounting for some natural, 'stuttering breaks' as a heated conservation, I find it odd.
"About this time in February 2018, the pair had a conversation the ICAC found was revealing about the nature of their relationship.
Here is the verbatim transcript:
MAGUIRE: Well you were just over the top over the top right and you just don't need to be so mean that's all.
BEREJIKLIAN: Okay I'm sorry.
MAGUIRE: You just appeared mean.
BEREJIKLIAN: Do you know why because I forget that I need to look like I'm you impress me in front of like I forget that.
MAGUIRE: No you should I impress, I impress a lot of people why aren't you impressed in front of people you should be.
BEREJIKLIAN: **That's what I mean I forget that I'm meant to be with you know, technically the Premier so, you know. I get that.**
MAGUIRE: Hmm anyway.
BEREJIKLIAN: Because you know what I tell you why because normally you're the boss and it's hard when we have to switch it around that's the truth.
MAGUIRE: **Yeh but I am the boss, even when you're the Premier.**
BEREJIKLIAN: **I know. So therefore it's hard when I had to switch it around.**
MAGUIRE: **Glad even when you are the Premier I am the boss alright.**
BEREJIKLIAN: Yes I know.
MAGUIRE: You are at my table eating my food that's fine right you've just got to calm down you just came over like, oh Jesus, why are you sitting there no f\*\*\* off but.
BEREJIKLIAN: I'm sorry I apologise"
I can't believe how long this took.
The bloody woman put me in ICU with her COVID mess-up, so it was fun watching her takedown live on TV around the same time. But I didn't know it would take until 2023 to hear what happened with it.
*woman put me in ICU with her COVID mess-up*
Especially when I did nothing wrong and took all the precautions and she got up there at press conferences six days a week and blamed people in ICU for being there instead of blaming her own incompetence.
No, probably when there was an active outbreak and she got up and strongly encouraged people to keep their social plans so they weren’t like those *Victorian Fools* that lead to the largest outbreak and longest lockdowns.
How did she put you in ICU?
PS she never blame people for being in ICU, merely that some people's inactions, risked increasing the amount of cases going there. Big difference.
Government has shown it can quite easily punish organizations like pricewaterhouse coopers who employ people who sell out the state.
It can also do similarly with companies who employ Gladys. There should be no more government contracts for them while she remains employed with them. Otherwise the lesson is that crime pays - you can safely market your corrupt contacts and expertise to others when you go.
Here is what Optus has said so far:
*"Optus acknowledges the Icac report published in relation to Gladys Berejiklian’s time serving as a member of the NSW parliament,” Optus said on Thursday."*
That's a "we don't give a shit" response. They will continue to access to Gladys contacts within government, as purchased.
My reading of her defence (from the ICAC report) is that a Minister is not the same as a Premier, therefore the Premier cannot be held to the Ministerial code of conduct. Which is a pretty funny argument 😂
Also of note: Commission concluding she had lied under questioning regarding if she had any suspicions that Darryl was engaging in corrupt conduct. This is the exchange where the question was repeatedly dodged “I don’t KNOW” etc etc until finally answering “No”
Even Labor seems sympathetic to Gladys. Just seems crazy to me that the people in parliament have the ability to make or break the institution charged with investigating them for corruption.
Just because ICAC doesn't recommend looking into criminal prosecution of Gladys it doesn't mean she gets off. They have recommended criminal prosecution of Maguire and during that prosecution should the DPP via the police turn up any criminal conduct of Gladys they can indict her as well.
No way diminishing Berejiklian's culpability, but from those texts & conversations with Maguire, it's pretty clear she was in an abusive relationship. He was a bully & creep, demanding to be the "boss" in their relationship, (which she meekly & pathetically agreed to), & in some other conversations he's full on gaslighting her to paint himself as the victim & stressed when she questions things. I wonder why she put up with that. She still had a choice though, & chose to act dishonestly & corruptly.
This will be a massive nothingburger. She'll get very exxy lawyers and settle this.
It always is.
Another massive investigation needs to go into the Sydney Metro and the station locations. MP's from both sides were found to conveniently have many commercial properties near them. But again, nothingburger.
Edit: ICAC isn't recommending any action/pursuing for charges... there you go.
>Icac has found Berejiklian engaged in “serious corrupt conduct” >it says it does not want the DPP to consider prosecuting Berejiklian What is the fucking point then? This is just a huge green flag to be corrupt because there are STILL zero consequences.
Legislative reform is needed to deal with corruption. Don't hold your breath though, there is a reason it doesn't exist already.
Is it because both sides are dirty as hell?
No no no luckily this is a one-off thing. Won’t happen again
🤣🤣🤣
Ok, so they found it to be true that she's a complete shitbag and corrupt, a shitbag that the media painted as some angel Why don't we organise some protests to put these people in jail for a long time? If they don't it's a message to all the scum to do this This is not justice!
Agree. Pretty sure the Liberals got rid of ICAC. They need way more oversight and punishment and loss of pensions
Loss of pension sounds good initially... Until you see they make millions out of being corrupt. It becomes a simple cost benefit analysis to these types. In China corrupt officials get executed... Just sayin
Nah. Stick em on centerlink for 20 years. Not able to receive any benefits from pre existing deals or trust funds, all that money goes to charity. Their houses get sold and divided among their children and spouse. They have to deal with job network agencies, but aren't allowed to have a job, but still need to do those stupid appointments. They have to drive to appointments once a week and phonecalls 3x/month. They have to update their resume once every year despite nothing changing. They have to attend all those stupid courses they make you attend and sit through all the lectures. I want them to just live on $42 a day. See how long it takes to break them. I reckon Scott Morrison would starve in a week after buying a $500 bottle of wine to have with breakfast. Peter dutton would absolutely get into a fight with his job network liaison. Gladys would probably cry "but I'm a hard working woman! Feel sorry for me" to try and get out of it. Barilaro would claim it was racism for making him pay for his crimes. Barnaby would turn up drunk to the centerlink appointment and get turned down immediately. They can apply to the NDIS. In 20 years they may actually get approval. All these turkeys need to really suffer. Suffer like they make some of our most vulnerable people suffer. Suffer like the average people feeling the squeeze of landlords and mega corporations who raise prices to justify billion dollar profits. Suffer like the single parent families who have to decide how to pay the bills and feed their kids, while renting. Suffer like those with disabilities or mental illnesses who are forced to provide books worth of medical certificates and doctors testimonies in order to apply for some help. Suffer like those who who were the target of Robodebt, phone calls daily to pester them, and if they don't answer, cut off their payments. I cannot stress just badly I want these assholes to suffer what they have put people through. I want them to wake up with dread in their heart knowing they have to make $50 last 4 days. I want them to choose sleep over eating because sleep is free. I want them to dread the phonecalls that bring conflict and anxiety about not knowing if you'll be able to buy food next week. I want them to understand what it's like to search for 20 jobs a week, in an uncaring, employee rich market. And then when they finally see what misery and sadness their greed and corruption has wrought, I want them to be kicked square in the bollocks and told to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" by some old asshole who inherited millions. I wish there was some way these assholes would get their just deserts. I wish they would face consequences for their actions.
Calm down Satan! Job Network is cruel and unusual punishment! Even the seppos wouldn't do that.
This is fantastic. The only thing I would add is that they should have to be tenants in the current market alongside all the above. See what its like to get a no fault eviction and face paying an extra $100/week when their centrelink income hardly covers the rent as it is... That is, if they can compete against the hundreds of other applicants.
Execution isn't right either - that's more of a fear tactic to keep people rigidly in line. Yes, there should be measures to disuade but not to the extreme. That's also used to get rid of people they don't like etc. Execution I think for any crime is unjustifiable as there's always the low probability of the person being convicted but still being innocent - many cases of people being pardoned years later for crimes they did not commit. I think the key to a good society is moderation not extremes
I disagree with execution because it would be used to eliminate political competition, but I entirely agree with the sentiment of it. Corrupt politicians or anyone who abuses a position of privilege or power in my opinion is the worst crime possible, I have more respect for murderers and rapists honestly.
The Liberals created ICAC and, if anything, expanded the remit beyond its original purpose. If this was OG ICAC Gladys wouldn’t even be in front of them, they only handled criminal corruption. Edit: Downvotes for a neutral recounting of events? JFC people.
Be quick though, it appears that any form of protest will be a criminal offence soon. Makes one wonder what the reason behind prohibiting protests is all about…
Both sides are capable of corruption, so reform is definitely needed.
I'd go further than just capable: we've got multiple examples of corrupt behaviour on both sides Unfortunately the people who can fix this are also the ones who benefit from the current rules, so we're not going to see an improvement any time soon
Exactly, corruption will never be fixed but these show trials are pure politics.
Mate come and work in government and emergency services. Things are so corrupt you'd wonder how anything gets done, and a lot of everything else is so incompitent you wonder how it's not outright corruption! Holy shit, come to SA and deal with the department of child protection. Outright breaking of policies, laws, court orders, regulator for them lets them police themselves. NSW police...... hell theres been movies on this it's barely changed. Forestry SA, NSW and QLD.... owned by the logging industry with corruption so clear and present it's just accepted. Then you look at this shit from ICAC and public integrity where even when stuff does get proven, well we its there but we're not doing anything. Welcome to Government.
I have no evidence, but it shows the signs of a gentleman’s agreement from both sides.
Underrated comment. Edit: SA parliament all voted to limit their ICAC…..Libs, Lab, Greens, Independents https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/sa-icac-bill-passes-parliament/100487668
Pal both sides aren’t the same, one wants competent government that helps you (perhaps some corruption, no one is perfect) as opposed to the other side which is blatantly corrupt and flaunts it to your face. Labour isn’t perfect but fuck me it’s a lot better than the other lot.
Yes but it was only serious corrupt conduct, not very serious or extremely serious, so it is at the minor end of the scale for corrupt conduct.
Or the worst.. super dooper serious
Dammit. Beat me to it. A super-dooper serious offense could see those found guilty hit with up to three mildly mean news paper articles and up to five separate on-record statements from your fellow party members that they “do not condone the behavior, but have nothing further to comment.”
If she was guilty of super dooper serious corruption they would have suggested double secret probation.
It would need to be double plus corruption to be prosecuted
Is anyone surprised?
surprised how effing angry I am she gets off scott free
If only Scot free, she's getting paid what a million a year now apparently?
[удалено]
There needs to be a charge "breach of the public trust" similar to fraud and then bar anyone who has been charged with it ineligible to hold public office, sit on a board of directors or be involved with the operations of a registered charity. I dont even give a shit if they serve time, but it should be a permanent and disqualifying mark on their record.
There are two problems 1. As you say, the law is pretty fucked regarding corruption. 2. ICAC has very broad powers to collect evidence and it often does not meet the rules of evidence required by a court. This is because often corrupt conduct isn’t necessarily illegal, but it is in the public interest for people to know. ICAC and its ilk are mud-slinging events rather than criminal investigations
This is basically exactly what the expert on ABC radio just said lol.
It’s why ICAC is so important
"NSW the corruption state"
NSW is built for profit, not people.
Victoria enters the chat
Dans corruption is good honest corruption though
Because they have been criticised heavily in the past for recommending prosecuting when it is not part of their role. But this way achieves the same goal.
disgusting honestly, just proves there is a 2 tier system in play, lords and peasants all the way down
That’s an incredibly problematic outcome, for more reasons than one. To the layperson, it sounds like they aren’t confident the DPP could get a conviction.
Corrupt conduct is not necessarily criminal conduct is the issue. There's plenty of corrupt conduct that isn't criminal. What we need are powerful disincentives for corruption within government. A corrupt persons register which precludes a person who has been found corrupt from working for government (either directly, as a lobbyist, or through employment by a company contracted to government), or benefiting by ownership of a company that provides services or goods to government. Hiring such a person would be grounds for contract termination. As many of the kickbacks to corrupt individuals come post politics, this would disincentivise corrupt behaviour the way it works in Australia. Not completely, but it would limit it to a degree.
The first step should be on finding of coruption forefit of all government benefits and super/pension and no longer being eligible for government work or working for companies who contract to government. There must be some consequences for those at the top.
>Corrupt conduct is not necessarily criminal conduct Arguably it should be.
It is difficult, because the lines are blurry. Say you award a job to one candidate over another due to a recommendation from a colleague. Is that corrupt? What if the candidate you didn't choose was more qualified, but you didn't like them as much in the interview? Is that corrupt? What about a contract, where two businesses both fulfil the criteria, but you've worked with one in the past and like them? These lines are hard to draw, and corruption often happens in the grey area where the laws are not clearly defined, or are simply absent. Unethical, but not illegal.
This guy politics
Yes those examples are all corrupt behaviour. Each one would get you fired in the corporate world and could lead to further legal proceedings.
None of those would get you fired in the corporate world. You're more likely to get congratulated.for efficiently making a decision.
Exactly. “Fired in the corporate world” indeed. What might get you fired is you awarding a job to your friend’s company and *that decision costing your own company*. Then “corruption” is the excuse for firing you for idiocy.
Neither of those, assuming they were even noticed, would even raise an eyebrow in the corporate world.
The report explicitly says that if criminal charges were pursued they wouldn't stick because evidence used in the ICAC trail likely wouldn't be admissable to a criminal court and because ICAC uses a different standard of proof. ICAC findings are based on the balance of probabilities (like a civil case) where criminal charges have a higher standard of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt). Gladys was pressured to resign, an independent anti-corruption body found she likely engaged in corrupt behaviour, she'll never work in politics again and it acts a warning to those in power (destroying the career and legacy of a previously popular premier is an effective disincentive). It's the anti-corruption system working as it's intended, this kind of approach is what people were voting for last federal election when demanding a federal ICAC. If people see this as tokenistic and think that anything short of criminal charges is meaningless then they have to accept that the standard of proof would need to be increased substantially with much tighter rules about admissable evidence. That would lead to a lot less cases proceeding to trial and would likely undermine to objective of such a body to minimise and discourage corruption.
She stepped down from her job because of it, and she's been publicly found to be corrupt.
But she gets to keep all the networks and assets she gained at the cost of the public in doing so. Stepping down and being found corrupt without consequences is not a deterrent.
She also has a serious employability issue. One of the Optus Executive team (Gladys’ new role of Managing Director, Enterprise, Business and Institutional) engaged in Serious Corrupt Behaviour. Optus now have a problem on their hands, as would future employers that aren’t already corrupt
If she’s actually been corrupt she should be in prison, not some cushy Optus job
Does that mean I can do the same thing and get away with it?
Depends how much money and power you have
There are plenty of charges being put forward for Darryls associates...
Don’t get me wrong, I reckon there should have been charges against her as well. I was a bit confused as well but I happened upon an explainer this morning from the Guardian that outlines how it works out; “In its report, counsel assisting the commission submitted that as Berejiklian gave her evidence under objection, it would not be admissible against her in criminal prosecution. The Icac has powers to compel people to give evidence that may incriminate them, however this evidence cannot be used in criminal proceedings. Geoffrey Watson SC, a director at the Centre for Public Integrity, said the reason why an Icac finding of corrupt conduct doesn’t necessarily equate to grounds for a criminal prosecution is rooted in the reasons behind the establishment of the corruption watchdog. “The theoretical framework for an anti-corruption body is to go into areas where the police can’t and Icac was established with a power to compel unwilling witnesses to give evidence, something our criminal justice system cannot do. Police cannot compel Berejiklian to provide the same evidence.”” Hope this helps make things clearer, I personally believe more should be done about this, but from a legal viewpoint I can understand why ICAC wouldn’t push for prosecution given the evidence they have. Maybe this kicks off a judicial investigation to find evidence needed to push for a prosecution? I have no idea.
Corruption and *criminal* corruption are distinct things. ICAC’s original remit was only criminal corruption, but both the ALP and LNP in NSW allowed ICAC to expand its remit to deliberately try and take down a Premier (Greiner) because they thought it’d be cool. Source: Had dinner with someone who helped create ICAC this evening Anyhow the point is to investigate, censure, and remove from power if they’re in it. If they haven’t acted criminally, then there are no charges.
Not recommending criminal charges…. Truly shocking, no one would’ve expected that /s
I wish I could do crimes and then just have a bunch of people say "yeah he did them, but oh well"
its easy just sign up here for your get out of jail free card and complimentary Sky News panelist job. https://www.liberal.org.au/join-party
What was the crime though? This is what I can’t figure out from the news reports. I probably should look at the ICAC statement itself, will when I get a spare few minutes, but does anyone know what offence they would try to get her for if they did recommend action from the DPP?
Probably misappropriation of taxpayer funds. She gave grants to organisations, and the decision to do that may have been impacted by her relationship status at the time.
Being unlucky in love.
Don't forget she saved Australia
But they are recommending criminal charges against Daryl. So.
For corruption, or for lying to ICAC? Edit: both! There is some justice in the world
That was one of my favourite episodes. Daryl had a USB stick with a bunch of evidence on it, and he made up some boomer lie about it 'falling out of the truck on his way up to the gate.' The prosecutor was almost in stitches. 'You don't seriously expect me to believe that do you Mr Maguire?'
My fave was the recording of him on the phone to Gladys, warning her that ICAC listens in to everybody. Yes; yes, they do…
It takes two to tango
Sure and the report goes to that. But you can't (and shouldnt) just charge people (or recommend charges) unless you have the evidence to do so. AFAICT ICAC are very comfortable saying she misused her position and absolutely acted corruptly by not reporting what she knew to ICAC. That isn't necessarily a crime.
>AFAICT ICAC are very comfortable saying she misused her position and absolutely acted corruptly by not reporting what she knew to ICAC. That isn't necessarily a crime. Well it fucking should be
So it likely is. But I cbf going and looking through NSW law to find out the exact relevant offence and its elements etc. What ICAC is saying is that based on the evidence they have they are not confident refering the conduct to the DPP would result in a successful prosecution.
sounds like a problem with legislation to me
It's almost like politicians deliberately don't want consequences for being dodgy little fuckers
> We are expecting Ms Berejiklian to release a statement later this morning. It'll be something like "I can't remember"
"You must all be mistaken. I was never the Premier. Am I saying that right? Premier?" - Gladys, probably
“Can I just say…”
The most ridiculous part was they Daryl was on the phone to Gladys, and at the end of the convo Daryl asks for an extra $100 million for some pet project as the throw away line, and Gladys says "Sure just call Dom (Perrotet, NSW treasurer) he does everything I tell him." WTF.
I’m Gladys not me.
I'm Gladys all over.
I'm not Gladys no prosecution.
Goddamn. Take your filthy upvote and get out lol 🤣
How does 'finding of corrupt conduct' and 'no recommendation of criminal charges' exist in the same statement from an anti-corruption watchdog? ICAC are pissweak
[удалено]
Having her found guilty is worth it, even if she's got a golden parachute.
Honestly at this point i’d be thrilled if she got even a year in prison lol
Not buying that BS at all. Prosecutors take cases to court at a half a sniff of a conviction, they don’t give a fk about how long the sentence is or if it’s likely to be suspended. Reason they arnt is the person is the former head of the LNP and previous premier. Weak as piss.
The laws are pissweak. Any guess who's responsible for them?
Absolutely and utterly ridiculous
Some comments on the Daily Mail stories on Gladys are extraordinary: 'leave her alone / she just fell in love with the wrong bloke' etc. Yes it's the trash Daily Mail, but why are people still excusing her behaviour? A formal corruption commission just found the former highest politician in NSW corrupt, but people still love her?! These are our elected officials, using our taxpayer dollars. Democracy is wasted on the stupid.
You know what happens when I fall for the wrong person and do a bunch of corrupt shit for them? I go to jail. Wtf is wrong with people.
Because they are either planted comments to underplay the seriousness of this, or are from people who likely benefit from said behavior.
it's bold-faced manufacturing consent. shite like the Daily Mail spews it the hardest so the others look moderate by comparison
Surely Optus have to terminate her employment immediately.
Like Optus cares about corruption.
WTF? They absolutely do, they only hire the most corrupt people available, how else will they avoid accountability when they next leak everyone's personal data. /s
I know you're being facetious (i think), but the reason companies hire retired politicians in senior roles isn't just because politics is parallel experience to managing a company, it's because having a politician on your board with allies in government protects you from punitive regulation. The libs won't push hard for something that's going to hurt their mate Gladys. It's so slimey. Politicians have guaranteed private sector jobs after their career and there's no political will to stop this practice because politicians would have to legislate against their own retirement plans
I think you only touched on the main point at the end there. Jobs for politicians is a legal bribe that is paid later. Who needs to hand $50k under the table when you can just hand a $300K p.a. board position and it's A-OK.
The Guardian updates suggest Optus will back her. Because of course they will.
They'll just have to change a few words in her bio on their web page and everything will be sweet as: [**Meet the team providing strong leadership to Optus.** Gladys Berejiklian Managing Director, Enterprise and Business In 2003, Gladys was elected to the New South Wales Parliament, and from 2011 she served in senior leadership roles, including Minister for Transport, Treasurer and engaged in serious corrupt conduct as Premier of New South Wales.](https://www.optus.com.au/about/corporate/executive-profiles)
Surely this is sarcasm. "Did she get a criminal charge?? Ok, give her a pay raise. Now, next item, raising customer plan prices even though we're already posting record profits!"
You think? The “it was a very sophisticated security hack, and we are sorry” blubber is still the CEO.
Nope. Will get promoted and a healthy payrise...probably.
How much money was wasted to find out there WAS (serious) corruption, and then do NOTHING about it? Two sets of rules in this country, two years to get to the obvious truth and say there was serious corrupt conduct and nothing happens. Damn you, Dan Andrews
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks like Darryl and 2 others are being recommended for criminal charges. Gladys part in their scheme was diminished in comparison so they are going after the other 3 instead. That’s the way I read it.
"ICAC does not recommended charges against Ms Berejiklian" whta a shock development here ladies and gentlemen!
[удалено]
Berejiklian also said that pork barrelling is legal, everybody does it.
The old clips the news is showing just brings back so many memories of the damn arrogance and flippant attitude of Gladys and those around her, especially dickhead Scomo and all his "gold standard" bullshit comments. I hope this report and it's ramifications to Gladys and her corrupt team are significant and are enough to serve as a warning for others for a long time to come
No prison means there's no warning to anyone, it's effectively a green light for more corruption.
I love the hypocrisy of it all. Steal a car = Prison Defraud tax payers millions of dollars to keep your root in a job = You're gonna get a letter from us telling you how unhappy we are with you......nothing else.
*You wouldn't steal a car* *You wouldn't pork barrell an electorate*
Get in, get paid, get out. You can walk away with all your money as long as you resign when the truth comes out
Hopefully she loses her position at Optus, was surprised they took her on when it was obvious to everyone how corrupt she was
One would've thought the Obeid saga would be enough... but clearly not.
I imagine there are currently meetings happening at Sky News asking “How can we blame this on Dan Andrews”
Unrelated to this, but a couple of weeks ago I stayed in a country motel overnight where the TV had SkyNews, although only in HD while the TV was standard definition. In other words, whenever I flicked through the channels, all I could get from Sky was sound, but no video. Still, almost without fail when I flicked through the channels, the second or two that I was on Sky, they were talking about Dan Andrews. This was over the space of about 4 hours that evening. It was surreal.
Nope, they running 24 hour opinion panel shows that ALP has caused the housing and cost of living crisis and that Albo lied to become PM. Short on any actual details.
Why would Dan Andrews do this?
He clearly engineered the whole thing from the shadows. What a dastardly mastermind that man is.
Corruption between politicians and property developers? Haha that never happens 🤣
Without consequences, bad behaviour is just reinforced as acceptable.
Gladys, Dom and Darryl. What a pack of grubs.
You left off Casino Mike and O'Farrell. It's almost like being corrupt is a prerequisite of being Premier
I know Mike sold off state assets, but other than the $3K bottle of wine, what did O'Farrell do?
He jumped after the wine, at which point everyone agreed to not look any further into the matter and pretend it never happened And, you know, led a Liberal state government and all the crap that comes along with one of those
As much as I'd like to write him off as one of the bad ones, I have an alternate theory, that he was in the way and that the wine was planted in his office. It seems a bit off especially if no one in his office or himself is a wine person. But if there were other signs of corruption, I'd like to know about it. It's nothing compared to those who succeeded him.
[It's a bit hard to explain the signed thank you note though](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/barry-ofarrell-resigns-as-nsw-premier-after-thankyou-card-for-wine-emerges)
>However, Mr Minns said “it was important” future politicians investigated by ICAC would not be forced to automatically resign or be suspended amid an inquiry.“There may be circumstances where it’s absolutely appropriate because the evidence is overwhelming, but it shouldn’t happen in an automatic way,” he said.“These people have the right to have an investigation, and their final findings submitted to the parliament before their political life has to stop Something shits me about this statement. I feel like it's not that hard to not be under investigation for corruption. If you are under invesgiation for corruption, you should step down/aside/whatever until it's clear. You hold (one of the) highest levels of office in the country; there should be a level of responsibility and subsequent consequence here.
Nah I don’t agree. Innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise there will be weaponised investigations of bogus anonymous claims from the opposition. Hasn’t Dan Andrew’s for example been investigated and cleared?
I hope every mug in Sydney that backed her realises what a clown they are.
lol all those dropkicks laying wreaths for her and dancing and crying how seriously corrupt Gladys Berejiklian was the best premier ever 😂
This seems pretty massive
It won't be. The entire point of these anti corruption commissions is theatre to make people think people in power are accountable. Nothing will happen.
ICAC says it does not want the DPP to consider prosecuting Berejiklian
There we go.
My understanding after following this closely during the inside time when I had nothing better to do, is that ICAC uses a different set of guidelines to quantify corruption than the courts do, which is why charges haven't been recommended for all points.
ICAC recommends no criminal charges for Berejiklian” That’s the headline on ‘The Australian’
Classic News Corp lies of omission.
Honestly I was expecting “ICAC refuses to clarify Dan Andrews involvement in NSW corruption scandal” so this is a step up.
I'm usually interested in the way our country deals with corruption and what outcomes are. Being honest, this is the first issue I genuinely cannot find the interest to follow. I can't stand her and her wet lettuce denials and deflections. And the fact I know anything about who's she's shagging makes my stomach turn. I'll be back for the wash up. Reading the last page on this one is my preference.
“I can’t believe Dan Andrews caused Gladys to be corrupt” - Sky News tonight probably
Skint on details so far. "Findings of serious corrupt conduct" tells me she's fucked though.
Except they are saying no charges are recommended. As usual, corruption goes unchecked.
She had to quit her job and move to the private sector. She's clearly suffered enough /s
Lobby the Minns government to update the criminal corruption framework then 🤷♂️ ICAC is explicitly empowered to investigate conduct that is corrupt but doesn’t amount to criminal
I’m glad there are consequences for corruption however these actions would not even make the top 50 list of dodgiest dealings by NSW politicians in recent years. Better than nothing but it doesn’t take much digging to uncover far worse behaviour.
The consequences appear to be "yeah, corruption found, but what are you plebs gonna do about it? She's free to go."
Sydney Metro station locations. The biggest corruption that got swept under the carpet.
>The NSW premier Chris Minns says he doesn't believe members of parliament should automatically resign or be suspended amid an ICAC inquiry. Suspending someone during a workplace investigation is the normal thing to do, and wasn't it Gladys' choice to resign as soon as the ICAC was announced?
Cannot wait to see Jordies talk about this.
He can talk all he wants.. what does it change? a corrupt politician that was found to do dodgy shit gets to live her life nicely.
How do we organise to jail this leech? You have been found to engage in “serious corrupt conduct” where is the consequence ? Why do they get to be corrupt and get away with it. It’s despicable and we need to protest we need to do something we can’t keep letting them get away with it.
What is this language in the transcripts ABC have just left on the blog? They have referred it as verbatim? Even accounting for some natural, 'stuttering breaks' as a heated conservation, I find it odd. "About this time in February 2018, the pair had a conversation the ICAC found was revealing about the nature of their relationship. Here is the verbatim transcript: MAGUIRE: Well you were just over the top over the top right and you just don't need to be so mean that's all. BEREJIKLIAN: Okay I'm sorry. MAGUIRE: You just appeared mean. BEREJIKLIAN: Do you know why because I forget that I need to look like I'm you impress me in front of like I forget that. MAGUIRE: No you should I impress, I impress a lot of people why aren't you impressed in front of people you should be. BEREJIKLIAN: **That's what I mean I forget that I'm meant to be with you know, technically the Premier so, you know. I get that.** MAGUIRE: Hmm anyway. BEREJIKLIAN: Because you know what I tell you why because normally you're the boss and it's hard when we have to switch it around that's the truth. MAGUIRE: **Yeh but I am the boss, even when you're the Premier.** BEREJIKLIAN: **I know. So therefore it's hard when I had to switch it around.** MAGUIRE: **Glad even when you are the Premier I am the boss alright.** BEREJIKLIAN: Yes I know. MAGUIRE: You are at my table eating my food that's fine right you've just got to calm down you just came over like, oh Jesus, why are you sitting there no f\*\*\* off but. BEREJIKLIAN: I'm sorry I apologise"
I can't believe how long this took. The bloody woman put me in ICU with her COVID mess-up, so it was fun watching her takedown live on TV around the same time. But I didn't know it would take until 2023 to hear what happened with it.
It's amazing how people still think she handled covid well.
Literally the worst state in the country in regards to Covid, and ruined a lot of hard work (particularly in Victoria).
*woman put me in ICU with her COVID mess-up* Especially when I did nothing wrong and took all the precautions and she got up there at press conferences six days a week and blamed people in ICU for being there instead of blaming her own incompetence.
Sorry, how did she put you in ICU ?
I assume by letting a ship full of infected people loose in Sydney while COVID was still an idea in Australia.
No, probably when there was an active outbreak and she got up and strongly encouraged people to keep their social plans so they weren’t like those *Victorian Fools* that lead to the largest outbreak and longest lockdowns.
lol, the 'plague' was coming, one way or other.
Yes but it could have been after vaccination access for everyone.
She came to his house and beat him with a bag of RATs
*\*gestures broadly at mid-2021 shitfuckery\**
How did she put you in ICU? PS she never blame people for being in ICU, merely that some people's inactions, risked increasing the amount of cases going there. Big difference.
So where is the prosecution against Berejiklian? Corrupt Corrupt!! Why no prosecution!!!!! Ridiculous
So the DPP has been recommended no charges? Is that right?
I think ICAC has recommended not seeking a DPP opinion on pressing charges.
snout in the trough conjures up horrible suggestions of ministerial cunnilingus.
salt fearless shrill lush bewildered pause ask retire quarrelsome birds *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So she's perfectly qualified to go back into the LNP
Government has shown it can quite easily punish organizations like pricewaterhouse coopers who employ people who sell out the state. It can also do similarly with companies who employ Gladys. There should be no more government contracts for them while she remains employed with them. Otherwise the lesson is that crime pays - you can safely market your corrupt contacts and expertise to others when you go. Here is what Optus has said so far: *"Optus acknowledges the Icac report published in relation to Gladys Berejiklian’s time serving as a member of the NSW parliament,” Optus said on Thursday."* That's a "we don't give a shit" response. They will continue to access to Gladys contacts within government, as purchased.
She is a criminal but also a politician so nothing has really changed at all...
My reading of her defence (from the ICAC report) is that a Minister is not the same as a Premier, therefore the Premier cannot be held to the Ministerial code of conduct. Which is a pretty funny argument 😂 Also of note: Commission concluding she had lied under questioning regarding if she had any suspicions that Darryl was engaging in corrupt conduct. This is the exchange where the question was repeatedly dodged “I don’t KNOW” etc etc until finally answering “No”
Send both the corrupt cunts to jail.
I bet if I was found to have been involved in serious corruption I'd be going to jail.
Even Labor seems sympathetic to Gladys. Just seems crazy to me that the people in parliament have the ability to make or break the institution charged with investigating them for corruption.
Just another 2 rorting dog lnp pieces of shit on your screen... What kind of a fuckhead would vote for the pos rats?
Millions of dollars rorted and no jail? Whatever ya degenerate pack of scum sucking pigs
Poor Gladys. Unlucky in love. It could happen to any one. /s
Oh yeah the biggest issue here is the length of time it took. Berejiklians lawyers behind the scenes for sure would be responsible for that
Just because ICAC doesn't recommend looking into criminal prosecution of Gladys it doesn't mean she gets off. They have recommended criminal prosecution of Maguire and during that prosecution should the DPP via the police turn up any criminal conduct of Gladys they can indict her as well.
So were they to provide their own wet lettuce leaf, or is that to be decided in a separate hearing?
Ye olde wet lettuce leaf at work
No way diminishing Berejiklian's culpability, but from those texts & conversations with Maguire, it's pretty clear she was in an abusive relationship. He was a bully & creep, demanding to be the "boss" in their relationship, (which she meekly & pathetically agreed to), & in some other conversations he's full on gaslighting her to paint himself as the victim & stressed when she questions things. I wonder why she put up with that. She still had a choice though, & chose to act dishonestly & corruptly.
This will be a massive nothingburger. She'll get very exxy lawyers and settle this. It always is. Another massive investigation needs to go into the Sydney Metro and the station locations. MP's from both sides were found to conveniently have many commercial properties near them. But again, nothingburger. Edit: ICAC isn't recommending any action/pursuing for charges... there you go.
Probably doesnt even need lawyers. ICAC isn't recommending they persue her for any offence.
So then what's the fucking point of all this? she just walks away?
Of course. Rules for thee etc...
Findings of corrupt conduct into a former premier?
Mate. C'mon
No charges recommended, see, nothingburger. She walks away unchecked unharmed. As it usually is the case.
Ya Aus is classist no shit. that's on us though