Rann’s emphatic sex denial might not end this affair

SM says:

04:27pm | 23/11/09

I found this part of the denial interesting:

“The suggestion that I would have sex on a golf course in Adelaide, as a fairly visible citizen of this state, is totally, absolutely ridiculous.

Such a visible citizen,  couldn’t exactly go to a motel now, could he? In a car, in the dark, in the middle of a carpark - not so visible.

Rose says:

04:38pm | 23/11/09

There is something very wrong when someone can be paid an exrtra-ordinary amount of money to tell a story which, true or false, has the power to destroy another person’s career. This woman has behaved despicably (either in the original affair or in the lying about one) and she gets paid..it’s beyond comprehension. As for her ex-husband, they are no longer married and it’s time he moved on. Both Mike Rann and this woman have children, has she once thought about the impact on them, or is the money more important to her than their emotional health?

Ant Sharwood says:

04:49pm | 23/11/09

That press conference was the weirdest thing ever. Why was it held under a gum tree at a suburban footy ground? Why were cameramen darting back and forth to get shots of the back of the premier’s head? I started off wanting political blood. Now I just feel like a Villi’s pie (courtesy of the advertising hoardings in the background.)

Adam says:

04:57pm | 23/11/09

If anyone can come up with a reasonable explanation as to what this has to do with politics I am all ears.  His private life is his private life, nothing to do with politics.  And to all those who sprout the cliche “How can we trust politicians to do their job properly if they lie about sex?’ I take it you have never ever told a lie in your life, never had sex out of wedlock and been completely honset with your partners. Abd if you had you would also resign honourably from your job?

davido says:

04:58pm | 23/11/09

I smell a big bucks payout here. wouldnt be the first defamation case lost by 7 recently.

I guess channel 7 figures it will make enough out of the mess to cover any losses from a defamation case. They are probably also gambling that with an election case coming, Rann may not pursue a defamation case.

Diamantina Dick says:

04:58pm | 23/11/09

As they say, it’s not the crime but the cover-up that gets them. Somehow this looks like it is going to plan so far…

What says:

04:58pm | 23/11/09

The only reason non-events such as these are such a big issue is because you, the media, thrive off of controversy. If there weren’t huge interview and publishing deals to be made, idiots wouldn’t come out with these outrageous claims. You are to blame.

Kathlock says:

05:37pm | 23/11/09

If Rann does his day job to the satisfaction of his ministerial cabinet and the government of the day, then what he does in his private life is no-one’s business.  If he has to stand down because of his private ‘activities’ then WE should be the ones who are ashamed.

Viv says:

05:55pm | 23/11/09

I’m surprised two crucial questions weren’t put to Mike Rann at his presser today -
1. Mr Rann, why did you change your phone number and not give the new number to Ms Chantelois?

2. Why did your friendship with Ms Chantelois suddenly end?

and putting another cat amongst the pidgeons:

What if Ms Chantelois was so star-struck by Mike Rann’s attention to her she deludedly believed that they may have a future sexual relationship even though it never existed? Then Mr Rann began courting his future wife - Sasha Carruozzo - causing an unstable Ms Chatelois to feel dumped and scorned. 
There is evidence out there to suggest that Mr Rann’s relationship with Ms Carruozzo seriously effected Ms Chantelois .
Could this be the real story?

Could Mr Rann be aware of a fragile mental state in Ms Chantelois thus honorably avoiding aggravating it by attacking her? After all the talk of the dishonorable conduct of Mr Rann could he really be the honorable party that is protecting a deluded and vindictive woman whom he knows may have a mental illness?
   
And for future reference:

Q: What do you aim for and what do you use against a male politician approaching an election to hit him where it hurts?
A: Use the media and go for the balls….

Daniel says:

06:12pm | 23/11/09

This guy needs to be sacked. What is it with the ALP being so rotten to the core?

John says:

06:14pm | 23/11/09

I actually think it is disgraceful that the media keep ruling Foley out based on the fact he has and is being treated for depression. Many many successful people have suffered depression and simultaneously been great leaders. Have you never heard of the depression sufferers Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln? Foley can certainly be ruled out for constantly talking about his failed relationships (who cares) and his general unelectability but the tabloid media needs some education if they think he can either be ruled out or be a lesser leader based on the fact he has battled depression.

phil says:

06:34pm | 23/11/09

I wonder if she owns a little blue dress.

Exact statements says:

06:38pm | 23/11/09

SM (4.27pm), you talked of Rann’s denial: “The suggestion that I would have sex on a golf course ... is totally, absolutely ridiculous.”  Actually, Chantelois’ exact allegation was that “we would go parking at the North Adelaide golf course” (where they allegedly had sex in the car). There’s a difference.

karen millar says:

06:43pm | 23/11/09

mr rann should be above repproach morally in his position..i believe the lady…if he cant cut the mustard in this way then get out of the kitchen mr rann

scarlet says:

06:52pm | 23/11/09

He should resign in order to give the next bloke a run up. Otherwise they are dead in the water come March. This will NOT go away just because Parliament isn’t sitting

steve says:

07:48pm | 23/11/09

What a load of piffle!
The whole issue is whipped up to appeal to the hypocrits in our society.
You know the ones who moralise about all things and fail to practice what they preach. The ones who moralise about christian values but fail miserably to uphold those very same values.
If sex did occur, so what! Consenting adults, one of which, Rann was single.
Why should he be asked to apologise?  Why? What wrong has Rann done? She conciously made a decision to commit adultery, if indeed it happened. One could be forgiven for thinking that this whole saga was staged to extract a good deal of money from it.

Cynical says:

07:58pm | 23/11/09

I love all the people that are calling for his resignation when there has been no evidence presented other than the word of one person. It is his word against her’s. Only a fool would make a decision based on that. Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of fools out there.

jan says:

08:08pm | 23/11/09

I can’t stand women who get caught red handed and then blame everyone else for their mistake.  Not only that but to tell tale the media all about there sordid affair and get paid for it is just beyond spiteful.  She is telling a story and destroying a man’s reputation and job because she is being paid to do so.  We don’t know if the story is true or not but to destroy a man’s life over a sordid affair even if it’s true or not is the lowest of low.  She should be ashamed, and why aren’t the press vilifying her for doing so.

Steve Parker says:

09:31pm | 23/11/09

Foley is being not suitable not because he has depression - but because everyone in SA knows he is a shit.

Allan Henry says:

09:51pm | 23/11/09

Why don’t you all look at the fact that this man got in the middle of a married relationship and did not encourage them to try to reconcile like so many of us would have. Most of us want to see married relationships work. He was motivated by his own selfish aims to break this up and got his justified deserts when Philipps wacked him with a rolled up paper, just like we normally do to a dog. Mike, you are very lucky there wasn’t a piece of 4 by 2 inside. That’s what I would have done if you had interfered in my relationship! I do not believe this lady was motivated by money to show herself in this light publicly. I am sure the truth will finally prevail. Karma rules!

Jaydem says:

09:57pm | 23/11/09

So here we have the PM of Australia saying “Mike’s a great guy.” despite him admitting in public forum that he was having a flirty relationship with a married woman?

Shouldn’t our PM have been “disgusted” that the sanctity of a marriage was broken and by a premier no less?

samantha says:

09:59pm | 23/11/09

This would be an non-event if it hadn’t been for the alleged assault by the lady’s estranged husband.  In many ways it is still a non-event.  I wasn’t interested in the Channel 7 interview so can’t comment,  but the one thing that made me queasy tonight was the very careful scripting of the Premier’s press conference.  I saw lots of lawyers and spin doctors little fingers in there.

persephone says:

09:59pm | 23/11/09

Er…if Rann HAD had sex with her in the carpark of the golf course, then he wouldn’t get the wording wrong. The fact that he seems uncertain of where the sex allegedly took place is actually a point in his favour.

The other scenario is this: she had a friendship with Rann and fantasized that it could lead to something more. She pretended to others that her fantasies were fact. Her husband found it easier to accept this than he would being told that he just wasn’t cutting the mustard any more.

Her husband - like many a spouse scorned - becomes obsessed with the idea that Rann stole his wife’s affections. After years of fulminating about it, he attacks Rann.

The media start sniffing around. They make it clear to Ms C - probably in all innocence, along the lines of ‘well, of course, if sex was involved, that would be a really big story and we’d pay big bucks for it’  - what kind of story will sell (‘Barmaid admits friendship with Rann’ would earn her nothing).

She has fantasized enough about what might have been that she’s got stories all ready to go.

BTW I’ve been in a Premier’s office. They’re never alone. Even in private meetings, there’s staff popping their head around the door saying things like “Five minutes till….” Her story suggests she never got closer than the corridor.

Some canny journo should ask her to describe the room.

Dan says:

10:01pm | 23/11/09

Daniel, why does he need to be sacked? What exactly has he done that is so rotten?

Personally, I think that if anyone has behaved rottenly, it’s her. She’s blaming Rann for breaking up her marriage when she’s the one who had an affair!

Hamish vettice says:

10:06pm | 23/11/09

I don’t know how he is on the ropes until there is proof he did what Michelle Chantelois has stated and he subsequently deneid? If proved, he will have to resign (now that he has publicly denied), otherwise, it is a non issue.

realist of adelaide says:

10:19pm | 23/11/09

this is just so obviously true, just like Pauline Hanson’s naked photos, and Bec Hewitts affair with her brother the yank gym instructor, New Idea and national newspapers don’t make up stories like this just to sell papers, they are all responsible and profesional journalists who would never prints things without knowing them to be true…. I wouls always trust journalists with other peoples reputations and lices .. don’t you ?

DM says:

10:48pm | 23/11/09

Let’s be honest as to why he’s denying - it not in outright denial.  He’s married.  He’s scared of his wife.  He’s lying to appease her and to keep her.  Earth to Rann - your wife knows.  She just needs to hear it from you.

Steve says:

12:06am | 24/11/09

Were does it stop though? I would argue David Penberthy, through TV appearances, has crossed the line from editor to a celebrity or at least famous journalist in his own right. He gets to publish his opinion on various topics, contributing his two cents to the debate. Does this mean we get to go back through his past to see if he has ever slept with a women who was in a relationship or had a clandestine affair? If we publicised it and he was caught out denying it, is this a justification for our actions? We have all done things in our life that we regret and we all try to move to with them. There is no need to single people out and drag their names through the mud, unfortunately for some people it seems to get played out on a national stage. Do mistakes from your past disqualify you from your job? We talk about truth in politics, but every job should stand up to a level of truth. Find a man that says he always told the truth and I will show you a liar. I would like to believe that journalism acts in the interests of the community and not the all-mightly advertising dollar…,

Your life in the spotlight says:

12:31am | 24/11/09

The press are to blame here why are we even reporting this, this is a non story how come everyones sex life becomes public under the press, why dont we the public do some storys on the press you’d find more then a few alcoholics, drug addicts and sex fiends in the press I assure you and as for 7 paying for the story I wouldnt give this stupid woman $1-00 for her story. Now for the press what are there fave hangouts, how disfunctional are these people, I’d say very I mean look at how many times channel 7’s boss has been done for drink driving for starters and thats not even the tip of the iceburg!

WritingIsOnTheWall says:

01:05am | 24/11/09

I hope you can sleep at night Ms Chantelois…...probably more comfortably with the big pay out from Seven!

The wages must be pretty unsatisfactory as a F&B attendant…...........

Sam Peckinpah says:

04:10am | 24/11/09

Apparently Isobel Redmond’s new voting platform is “Im reasonably happy all of the time and noone will root me”

Ray says:

04:52am | 24/11/09

Glad to see SA politics being opened up…...it’s been too closed shop for too long…..Rann and Atkinson being untouchable…..a law unto themselves….hope more about both of them comes out in the media soon…..there’s a lot going on with these two that needs to come out….

Jordan says:

06:42am | 24/11/09

Ms Chantelois claims do not ring true.

During the interview she explained how her 6 year old overheard a conversation about the ‘‘affair’‘. She said her child was upset. She claimed to be sorry for hurting her child.

Then, she goes to the media with the story and gets paid for it.

Where is her consideration for her child’s well-being now?

Obviously, her child’s well-being is a not priority for her. This demonstrates that her tears during the interview were crocodile tears, and furthermore, demonstrates that she is a totally self-centre women.

I’m seeing indicators of Histrionic Personality Disorder.

Someone needs to look into her background and find out why she left the US to live in Australia.

Shara Lewis says:

06:46am | 24/11/09

Channel seven should be ashamed as should channel nine who also wanted to BUY this story. It is all about destroying a truly good Premier who cares deeply about the state. It is not about truth since, whatever happened, Mr Rann was NOT married at the time. Leave him alone

Jordan says:

07:03am | 24/11/09

Since we’re all getting PC….

Channel Seven seems to be the self appointed sentinel of morals and political correctness as far as personal relationships go, I’d to know how was OK for Ryan Stokes to form a relationship Jodi Gordon, given that she is an employee of Channel Seven?

Where does this cycle political correctness end?

Sandra says:

07:05am | 24/11/09

This is a prime example of the way that some elements of the media misuse their power. She was married, he was not.  She was not a naive teenager but an adult with children yet she claims that she chose to have an affair with a single man and he’s to blame! I don’t think so! If she truly cared about her children she would not have negotiated a deal with the media and revealed salacious details of the alleged ‘liasons’.  As for the husband, I fail to understand the reasoning behind the demands that Mike Rann apologise to his accuser as well as his own wife. This whole exercise has been a blatant attempt to ruin the career of a person in public office by delving into unproven details of his private life that have no bearing on how he does his job. Perhaps the reporter and other media involved in reporting this story might like it if their past girlfriends and associates are invited to step forward and talk about them so we have a chance to judge whether fit and proper people to being employed to report the ‘news’.

Injured Worker says:

07:13am | 24/11/09

If Rann can sue Channel 7 and New Idea for allegations that he says are false, can I sue him for false allegations regarding injured workers being responsible for the Workcover “unfunded liability”? Or does the door only swing in one direction, HIS?

JC says:

07:32am | 24/11/09

As easy as it is to be critical of people’s motives, I must admit that I would confess to an affair with MM for 100k. And I only met him once in a lift.

joe bloggs says:

07:55am | 24/11/09

Time to see if trully there’s political correctness and the femminists don’t get to win, plus th media gets to shut the hell up. WHO CARES ABOUT THS CRAP?

Dave says:

07:56am | 24/11/09

It’s amazing, what some people will do for a buck at the expence of there dignity. There family must be proud. It is bad enough what both parties got up too, but to drag yourself through your own mud in public does not cut it for me. So what, you had an affair and got caught! Deal with it with the one’s you love and hurt and move on

jacinta says:

08:06am | 24/11/09

well obviously i dont know every thing as i wasn’t there, like every one else but my first thought is -who wants mike rann destroyed-the bikers that he shuts down, whos to say they haven’t given the women a BIG wads of cash to lie about him- its not impossible, and the ex husband could have reacted to the lie as he might not be any the wiser. I jut feel sorry for her kids as in her bid to get over all her lies (says herself that she has been a liar) she tells the world where she has sex -thats not purging her self of guilt but makes her look like a tart/or worse and the kids would feel humilitated.

Gail says:

08:11am | 24/11/09

People having sex in darkened golf course carparks are bringing shame to ‘The City Of Churches’ and her citizens and I will never support any politician partaking in this lured activity.

robh says:

08:13am | 24/11/09

Let’s just hope for Mr Rann’s sake she does not have one of ‘those’ dresses tucked away in one of her built-ins.

Roy says:

08:15am | 24/11/09

Rann is a very astute politician.  As such if he had had sex with the poor woman, he would have done his sums and would have found admitting the act(s) would be far better than denying it and getting caught out later.  I believe he is telling the truth.  Perhaps the truth lies in the ex husband he seems a very aggressive person.

ROFL says:

08:22am | 24/11/09

Total yawn, seriously.

Pablo says:

08:39am | 24/11/09

Has anyone asked the lady what is her motivation for telling her story, aside from the money….....

RT says:

08:39am | 24/11/09

Either Rann is telling the truth or he conducted the whole affair with Chantelois with a ‘plausible deniability’ plan in his back pocket.

Rob says:

09:00am | 24/11/09

To those who keep saying this is a private matter, think again. Mike has thrown enormous taxpayer resources at defending himself and he’s tested the idea that this is politically motivated.

Jack says:

09:04am | 24/11/09

Has no one else struck on the fact that this occurred BEFORE THE MINISTER WAS MARRIED..??!!  Ergo…WHO CARES..??!!!  I had sex with a few birds before I got married too…Should I be strung up for it too..??  Jesus people..!!

RT says:

09:04am | 24/11/09

A couple of people post about how boring and unimportant this story is. My question: why did you open it and post a response if it bores you?

Crow says:

09:11am | 24/11/09

Their is only one way to tell who is lying in this saga, and that is the Lie Detector, and only one question needs to be asked,no if no buts,Mr Rann did you have sexual intercourse with Ms Chantelois.  BTW make sure the Lie Detector is not a cheap Chinese Import, otherwise it bound to explode.

ROFL says:

09:15am | 24/11/09

Look, for Pete’s sake, even if it was true,  who cares? Seriously?

Are we down to “he bwoke my heart (sob) and I could only mend it with mega media bucks” as the test for public office? Eh?

Seriously. Are we going to sack everyone who’s ever had a cuddle without a wedding ring?  C’mon! We’d be down to about 2 politicians…and one of them would be Ruddock.  Get real!

Geoff says:

09:30am | 24/11/09

RT - People open stories ,read them and make a post because they want to comment on the crap that gets served up by the media and comment on the constant dribble the media are willing to pay people for stories that are at best questionable.
The reality is the premier ,at the time was single, SHE was married and had the affair, IF it happened as she says
SHE destroyed her relationship with her partner.
Funny how it has taken 4 years for the story to come out and only did so following her financial situation and an offer of money.
I don’t see anywhere where she claims being raped or forced to have sex with this bloke, not once but several times.
Come on people she was an active participant
BIG DEAL !!!!!!!

Mick says:

09:38am | 24/11/09

I know it’s customary to gibber breathlessly when a story is paid for. But a few points worth noting.
- Other media organisations wanted the story but have no money. It appears Seven’s ok in that department and got a story everyone wanted.
- If Seven loses a defamation case it will be because Rann has been able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this woman is LYING.
- In saying that, Rann doesn’t deserve this heat. His bit of crumpet is the adulterer. He is from what I gather an excellent premier, with an excellent record. He was not married at the time of the relationship. Only problem I see is that it is alleged he had sex while working. Whether right or wrong, any other staffer would be sacked for that.

robert says:

09:42am | 24/11/09

get a life. Everyone has had sexual flings and many a lot wilder than what is alleged here,  who cares it is no more significant than cleaning your teeth or wiping your bum.  I HAVE HAD AFFAIRS.  phew glad thats out in the open

Blossom says:

09:48am | 24/11/09

I am in N.S.W and I think foremost we need to ask is Mr Rann a good Premier? My answer to that would be yes and many from N.S.W envy S.A.
The lady in question is the one who was married , and she knew she was commiting adultary be iteither with Mr Rann or anyone else. Being female I resent the idea that we are so weak and sillly we cannot control our emotions and actions and we need to blame it on a man. If anyone needs to apologise to her family, its her. Having said that, I do feel this issue is really not worth our time, if he commits some blunder that hurts S.A., I will be the first to say he should go . But his actions have not involved Australia. The lady in question dragged us all into this.

Mark says:

09:49am | 24/11/09

“Her estranged husband is the angriest bloke in South Australia”

Really?  So the best he can do when he bumps into Rann is hit him with a rolled up magazine?  And send Rann a poncy letter referring to Rann’s “inappropriate behaviour”?  Come on, that doesn’t add up at all.  An angry husband would do more than that to the bloke who’s been banging the missus.  Now, Rann may well have transgressed with the barmaid, but hubby doesn’t seem too upset at all, although he’s engineering a nice plan for he and Michelle to make some good money out of this.

SM says:

10:00am | 24/11/09

@Exact Statements

The difference is exactly what I pointed out

Julie Coker-Godson says:

10:22am | 24/11/09

I understand this story is also in New Idea:  who on earth would want to believe anything printed in that magazine?  It has no credibility and has, I believe, previous history in this sort of story.  Remember Becs and Hewitt? New Idea lost on that legal battle.  I agree with Davido on this one: ” I smell a big bucks payout here. wouldnt be the first defamation case lost by 7 recently”.  Same applies to New Idea.

Jolanda says:

10:31am | 24/11/09

I do not understand why this Politician is being treated like a celebrity by the media.  He wasn’t married if and when he had this romp, she was.  Surely the finger should be pointing at her more than him and in particular for bringing it out into the open so long after the event.  You would have to wonder what her agenda is and why she would do that and why it is such a big deal?  The media seems to focus more about a Politicians sex life rather than whether or not they are actually doing their job.  That is a concern.

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/

BBB says:

10:36am | 24/11/09

A few issues:

- why did he only admit to a ‘flirty’ type relationship after the interview and not following the assault when there was a whiff of improriety in the air?  It would seem Rann’s position has moved since the interview and in the circumstances might it not be possible for his position to move further (denial or not)?

- what further evidence does Channel Seven have and when are they going to release it?

- is it right that a person in a position of power can use that position to ring Kerry Stokes to find out information that relates to ostensibly a personal matter?  On the flipside of the coin, is Rann going to start taking calls and releasing information to aggreived members of the SA public?

Nigel says:

10:38am | 24/11/09

Why it matters ...
- He is in the position of power and can dominate that the relationship can/can not occur.  Ask yourself, could he have her fired/sidelined for failing to comply (sexually)? Could she think he could (and thus be able to resist)?
If he is capable of this abuse of power, what other abuses of power has he commited and not been found out?

- If he can lie to the camera about this, what else is he lying about?

Its not about his personal life, had he had a relationship outside the (public) office that’s his personal preference.  Doing it at the office (not literally, but with staff) makes it a public affair.

Take the lie detector test Rann, larger political hit but short term, rather than long term damage that won’t go away.

David M says:

10:39am | 24/11/09

So Rann is going to sue channel 7 and New Idea.  If he did not have sex with Ms Chantelois he will have no trouble funding proceedings with his own money.  If the public pays for his litigation he is obviously not that confident of winning.

Garry says:

10:58am | 24/11/09

Julie Coker-Godson I agree. Sad people will read New Idea and they will believe it all and that is in my view criminal. ‘Our’ preoccupation of living the lives of the rich, famous or infamous is a testimant to how sorry some people’s lives are and I don’t mean the rich, famous and the infamous. Why people have a need to huddle and read the going on’s and then comment with an air of ‘at least its not me’ or throw on a face of ‘its disgusting, immoral, sad, or funny’. We read therefore they will print, thats the excuse of people like ‘New Idea’, because sad people read then we will unfortunately still see them.

I do not think Rann should take a lie test, he has done nothing wrong than to be caught by a media dead set in reporting and hoping the people jump up and down, increase their advertising revenue and give the media something to keep on reporting for days.

Sad people read becuase they want to know the gossip and sad people report and use the excuse ‘the people need to know’. If we all were able to say, ‘who really cares’ maybe this gutter press would go away.

Mrs James says:

11:00am | 24/11/09

I discussed this issue with my husband of 30 years last night and we both came to the conclusion, that Mr Ranns private life is not our concern.
Marriage is hard work, you both need to be comitted to making it work. Ms Chantelois obviously did not have that same commitment and now seeks to blame other or perhaps this is just all fabricated for money. In any event I have cancelled my subscription to New Idea On reflection I refuse to purchase a magazine that champions convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby and denigrates a hard working Australian like Mr Rann

Mark W says:

11:18am | 24/11/09

Rann’s spin wants us to believe that being paid for an interview means that she’s lying.  That’s a dumb argument.  Why would any payment stop her from telling the truth?  I think the payment means she was obliged to tell what happened in more detail.  I’m finding her story of events more believable.  Then again we can believe anything a politician says, can’t we?

mick hubble says:

11:23am | 24/11/09

Rose open your eyes dear.its because of people like you that we have had to put up with these gangsters running our state for so long.go and live in nsw or qld if your happy to have the labor party doing whatever they like at your expence.i guess you are a typical biased australian who cares not for the way our country is run.i bet you even voted for that lying,decieving dudd and his crooked mates.go to your grave knowing that you and people like you did nothing for your country.and dont bring out the war stories because ive heard em all.those guys with the guns are the ones who should be thanked not some old lady who made sausage rolls at the fete.Ranns gotta go,hes not an honourable man and people like you should keep up with political debate and not just turn up to vote because you have too.

Gina Riley says:

11:30am | 24/11/09

Most people couldn’t give a Fig about his Sex Life after all they were two consenting Adult’s one was single and one was in an unstable Marriage, but the problem lies with the Fact that it seems Mike Rann has been lying to the SA Public and this makes us worry about what other Lies he may be hiding, would make a good Plot for a Movie.

joe2 says:

11:39am | 24/11/09

“The timing could not be worse because with fixed terms in SA the election is set down for March next year.”

It’s bad timing for him but predictable . Dropping a bucket is best done around election eve and the press are working harder to get their aim right.

The Pauline Hanson fake pictures were a perfect example because the truth came out straight after the election when her chances were destroyed.
And I say this, as someone who could not stand her.

It would be good if the media began reporting the news rather than hanging out in the gutter and trying to act as a political player .

Ben says:

11:44am | 24/11/09

Sounds like a perfectly timed smear campaign to me.

In all honesty I dont care if the Premier of my state had an orgy with circus midgets. Its not going to affect the way they run a state.

Freddo B says:

11:47am | 24/11/09

Why tell at all about an affair with someone? To me, that is one of the worst betrayals that one person can do to another; tell all(truth or not) about an affair that was willing on both sides, especially going into all that details.
Come off it, lady, drop it, you’ve got your money now please go away. Your husband is better off without you, too.

Beentheredonethat says:

12:20pm | 24/11/09

Gosh if she had got pregnant would it be a phantom pregnancy? Joe Bloggs please explain what feminism has to do with this piece of salacious nonsense.

Dr Gaye Barr says:

12:29pm | 24/11/09

Ms Chantelois tried hard to summon up the crocodile tears when speaking about her son having overheard a conversation, thereby knowing something of the affair but she wasn’t too worried about her son in the Channel 7 interview - sold him out for $100K. The whole thing is boring, tasteless and despicable, in particular, her husband’s call for a parliamentary enquiry. As if the Adelaide taxpayers would support that in the wake of an economic crisis. These people are grubs. Hopefully the media will dig some dirt on them.

Paul Martin says:

12:35pm | 24/11/09

Put aside what ever happenned on the Premiers desk. The only crime if you can call it that is that the woman was married, Rann himself was a single man at the time. I don’t think he should resign. However if Ranns denial is proved to be a lie then yes he must resign as Premier.

Wazza says:

12:47pm | 24/11/09

If Channel 7 want to pay me $100,000 I’ll admit to having sex with the Pope!

BD says:

01:41pm | 24/11/09

In response to Mark’s post:

Her estranged husband is the angriest bloke in South Australia”

Really?  So the best he can do when he bumps into Rann is hit him with a rolled up magazine?

Mark, it was a WINE magazine.  In Adelaide.  Its like hitting the Pope with a bible…

Steve of Brisbane says:

01:50pm | 24/11/09

Wouldn’t it be funny if an email from the the SA Opposition to Ms Chantelois was leaked regarding prompts on how best to answer questions to destroy the ALP SA Premier’s character before the next state election. Can’t blame the Libs for trying. Will any one in the press follow up that lead?

Robert Horley says:

01:53pm | 24/11/09

Nobody cares if he had an affair.  However, if he lied about that affair to the public he represents, then he deserves to go.

Benji says:

01:56pm | 24/11/09

What I find funny about this whole thing: If everyone who has ever lied about sex was barred from taking an interest in this story, it would die the quickest death you’ve ever seen.

Destry says:

02:18pm | 24/11/09

She looks like a stunned mullet… vacant stare… no-one home.  And the product of checkbook journalism. Does anyone except the press REALLY care what happened?.

SM says:

02:55pm | 24/11/09

It seems that of all the comments made so far, the 2 most representative of public opinion are:

1) I don’t care if he had an affair

and

2) I don’t care he if he had an affair, but I do care if he lied about it

If his relationship was sexual, and if he then decided to lie about it, he has made a truly diabolical decision

Karen M says:

03:49pm | 24/11/09

I think most Australians realise, that something is wrong here. Why wait 4 years to bring this up? And why would the ex husband wait so long to act? Violence is never acceptable in Australia or anywhere else for that matter, in my opinion anyway. Mr Rann was single at the time , Ms Chantelois on the other hand was aware she was married. She knew she was cheating, if she actually did.!!  The only person who should apologise to her children is her husband and herself for bringing that family into the media spotlight. She has made good money out of this and got her 5 minutes of fame. I really think with all the other important issues we face in Aus, that this is a storm in a teacup. I wonder do these women who run crying to the press, realise they get an instant loss of respect from so many?

ol says:

04:20pm | 24/11/09

Just looking at Premier’s current cowardly behaviour anyone can see that he is inapt for his position.

Glenno says:

06:46pm | 24/11/09

Why is everyone saying that mike was single at the time when, in fact, he was in a relationship with sasha at the time. (but not married yet)  How else would sasha have known about his friendship with her. Mike said that sasha was fully aware of his friendship with michelle. Why would that matter…................... IF HE WAS SINGLE !!!!!!  Can someone please explain.

john bowman says:

08:07pm | 24/11/09

Two terms is enough - affair or no affair.
Women are good liars and men are bad liars. Bye Bye Labor

Coola Mi says:

11:51pm | 24/11/09

The true mark of an honourable human being is to take responsibility for their actions. As a human being Rann fails and then when we view him as a politician that too backed by Rudd it gives you an idea how all pollies are - ” Hail Brother Well Met”. As a country God bless us if we have these creeps as leaders!

Daniele says:

12:28am | 25/11/09

What he does in his private life I agree is his own business but if he does miss lead the public then he has to be held accountable. If Rann is not guilty then why play these stupid games with the public that he always does. Look very carefully at all his responses and he never gives a straight answer in fact most of his answers could be interpreted either way. Why sue channel 7 and new idea, is it that he is afraid that if he attacks her personally then she might hit back with more? Is channel 7 holding back to see how far Rann goes to cover himself before bringing out some hard proof. Who cares! All I can say is I have lost all respect for Rann and this government purely because the way they play spin doctors and treat the public with contempt.

Whyvoteatall says:

08:19am | 25/11/09

OK we have two people and one is lying. Do we believe the unfaithful, unqualified, barmaid, SEO woman (it appears some think she is the lesser of the two) OR the Premier of the State of South Australia (who should not be capable of lying)? There in lies (no pun intended) the very reason this is an important issue, especially in the lead up to an election. If the woman lies, it will be seen as something that was ‘expected’ of a person of her class. If the man lies, the very fabric of government is called to question. We evidently don’t need an anti-corruption watch-dog in SA because our politicians don’t lie, or they have sufficient means to worm their way out of determining if they ever have lied. The man chose to be a politician which brings with it the burden of public scrutiny. We South Australian’s need honest and trustful leaders, not people who remind the rest of the country we live ‘in a backwater’.

Heather says:

06:38pm | 25/11/09

I notice that Mike Rann has not done a single twitter since 17 Nov. That must be a first. Is it because his PR staff are flat out smoochin’ with the media to blacken the name of the barmaid and/or her husband?