It’s astounding. Liberal senator arrested and charged

The Rock says:

07:13pm | 22/07/11

That would be the security guard.

Ben81 says:

07:48pm | 22/07/11

“If Mary Jo was a Labor senator there would be howls from the right.”

nah, we’re used to Labor members being arrested

The Rock says:

09:24pm | 22/07/11

lol…good one.

But of course you can already see the diffence in tone of the reaction.

The Rock says:

10:37pm | 22/07/11

True Tony no defending that. I’m not saying one side is better or worse than another. Although there are a few LNP members on this list as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

So people in glass houses….etc.

I just think the rhetoric would have been unreal if this had been a Labor Senator.

One thing for sure is if the circumstances and the excuses offered turn out to be correctly reported then they don’t amount to anything in the way of a defence.

RyaN says:

10:47pm | 22/07/11

@The Rock: I call bullshit on your comment mate, this Labor MP got arrested on child porn charges and not a peep was made of it.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/mp-sex-charges-shatter-labor/story-e6frf7l6-1226043161422

The Rock says:

12:47am | 23/07/11

How does this relate to this topic other than being a fairly obvious red herring?

chris says:

01:46pm | 23/07/11

And I’m calling BS on yours, Ryan. A Liberal MP would have been subject to the same restrictions, suppression orders etc as the Labor guy in question. Having said that, anyone who can tie their own shoelaces and has access to a computer can pretty much suss out who the perp is. Exactly which of the salacious details of this whole wretched case do you feel you can’t live without? PS, I voted Liberal in the last state election so don’t start up with any of that nonsense.

TimB says:

07:37pm | 22/07/11

Actually it’s a pity that it wasn’t Labor MP. We could have used a bi-election right about now.

Ah well.

Mark B says:

10:32pm | 22/07/11

“Labor” pains fellas, nothing more!

Except for Keith Wright in Qld that is..he had an itch did’t he? Some thing like that they say….

it’s not all bad for Labor considering Howards weak effort while he was in and the issues he created…

Works on both sides injustices…..

TimB says:

11:15pm | 22/07/11

@ “No it all”, I’m well aware of that.

That’s why I said Labor MP, not Labor senator. You are aware that the term MP refers to a member of the House of Reps right?

Who’s the real numbskull here?

Christian Real says:

08:40am | 23/07/11

No it all
It is obvious that Tim B doesn’t know how the political system works

Matt says:

11:32am | 23/07/11

“Christian Real says:

08:40am | 23/07/11

No it all”

What is this I don’t even.

TimB says:

01:07pm | 23/07/11

@ Matt, Christian is referring to a now deleted post made by someone with the handle “no it all”.

The brilliantly intelligent poster in question replied to my inital post at 7.37PM to helpfully point out that we don’t have by-elections to fill senate vacancies. He then questioned my understanding of our system of government and finished off by calling me a “numbskull”. (I assume this is why it was deleted- too bad it was better when he looked silly.) Christian, being of equal intelligence to this poster, agreed with him.

What both of these geniuses failed to realise, is that my initial post specifically states Labor MP and not Labor Senator.
Given that neither of them appear to know the difference between an MP and a senator, It’s not *my* understanding of our political system that should be called into question here.

Matt says:

01:59pm | 23/07/11

@Tim B: That clear it up then. I thought it was quite obvious what you were trying to say in your initial post. Some people are simply in too much of a rush to attack another person’s position to properly read what was articulated I guess. *shrug*

Kim says:

10:02pm | 22/07/11

@tracker

This has nothing to do with ALP, Green or Independent politicians.

She’s a Liberal Senator.

TimB says:

09:00pm | 22/07/11

Is that why my response went missing Tory?

Or did it just get eaten?

NSW says:

09:47pm | 22/07/11

Yuck….

john says:

10:04pm | 22/07/11

@Olly,

Then they both can do the hokey pokey The Jo &Joyce; couple could then move up from supermarkets and possibly do better than bonnie and clyde

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ACCpXaA-MU&feature=related

MDG says:

11:03am | 23/07/11

You mean the South Australian Labor state MP?  I’m sure it’s news in South Australia, but why should the rest of the country care unless, like you, they have a pathological hatred complex to deal with?

Mark says:

10:07pm | 22/07/11

We now have a strong contender for Stupid Comment of the Year.

The Rock says:

10:23pm | 22/07/11

“does that mean we can have a double dissolution and then a general election”

No. Mary Jo is in the Senate not the House. And even if she were in the House she’s a Liberal.

AB says:

10:39pm | 22/07/11

Can’t quite understand how the resignation of a Liberal senator would cause a double dissolution.  Maybe my understanding of the constitution is a bit weak and you could explain how?

Jan says:

04:52am | 23/07/11

“If Mary Jo has to resign, does that mean we can have a double dissolution and then a general election?”

Just to answer this, if a Senator quits/dies, their party will replace them with someone else. Technically, it’s the state parliament of the state they represent who chooses the replacement, but it has to be someone from the same party. I’m not sure what happens with Independents, but there are plenty of examples of partied Senators resigning and their party choosing a replacement.

Chris says:

09:34am | 23/07/11

Go easy, Mark. Many people don’t understand the political process. The only occasion for a double dissolution comes from section 57 of the constitution—bills being rejected by the Senate. All other elections are House and half-Senate.

Minko says:

11:57am | 23/07/11

If she resigns or is removed there is a “casual vacancy” created which will be filled by a new Senator nominated by the party she belonged to ... in this case The Libs.  There is no by-election (this relates to House of Reos only), let alone a double-dissolution election (which relates to the blocking of a supply bill).

Richard says:

12:07am | 23/07/11

Being charged with something means it’s only an allegation.  Only when it is proved in Court does it then become fact.

A different Rosie says:

09:03am | 23/07/11

Yes, but so is my cat.

Gerard says:

10:32am | 23/07/11

Actually there is. Why is this allowed? Surely the seat should go to the candidate with the next most votes?

The Badger says:

01:32pm | 23/07/11

It only said it was accepted and would be moderated old No 1.

Are you sure you had your trifocals on when you read it?
It was probably deleted because News. Ltd. staff are instructed to delete all comments that spell Murdoch with a K.
Soon your comment above this will disappear as well and there will only be my reply hanging in the air.

Shooters & Fishers says:

02:40pm | 23/07/11

The drug companies only got involved with beyond blue because they could make money just like Jeff Kennett. If Jeff was of such high calibre why didn’t he volunteer his services instead of charging an arm and a leg? A lot of volunteers do a lot more for these organisations then the high paid people. I would also like to thank Beyond Blue for the help they provide I just wish it was not bank rolled by drug companies.