Menu (with ref to Gillard & Rudd) - Restaurant Owner admits it was his idea

[cherry*135]

Just heard this on TV. Owner said he thought it was a light hearted idea. I didn't catch it all but I think he said it wasn't handed out at the dinner.

crikey - It was that restaurant named in the link on a previous thread in this topic.

[i-need-a-martini]

There is no way any of them would have apologized if they weren't guilty of being in the know!

Of course not.

[***super_nova***]

The "menu" has landed in my FB first thing in the morning yesterday; my first thought was NO, that cannot possibly be real.  Few hours later it was on the news.  In meanwhile there would have been frantic communications among LNP members, and then came the apologies.  Yes, apologies and lame excuses but NO denials.  Yes it was said that the 'menu" was a work of non party member, but it was only at night, some 12 hours later, that the claim was made that it had nothing to do with the people present at the diner, that none has seen it, it was not shown etc.  Well, if that was the case why wasn't that made clear from the start?   

[donnashuggy]

Because they are being dishonest.

[catsnknots]

The "menu" has landed in my FB first thing in the morning yesterday; my first thought was NO, that cannot possibly be real.  Few hours later it was on the news.  In meanwhile there would have been frantic communications among LNP members, and then came the apologies.  Yes, apologies and lame excuses but NO denials.  Yes it was said that the 'menu" was a work of non party member, but it was only at night, some 12 hours later, that the claim was made that it had nothing to do with the people present at the diner, that none has seen it, it was not shown etc.  Well, if that was the case why wasn't that made clear from the start?   

I heard this around lunchtime... 

I went looking for more about it but it was not on the news... 

It was being talked about on Facebook that this was the case.. we were waiting all day for confirmation and it came at 7:25 pm for me. 

I am waiting for Mal to have his media talk before I make a judgement. 

[izabsmiling]

I've read that the email was forwarded with Mr Richard's permission to journos from Tony Abbott's office and that Mr Richard wrote it after seeing the menu story on the evening news .

didn't Mal had him being apologetic earlier in the day ?

[silverfaun]

That menu has been around for years, It was first started for Hillary CLinton. Gillard had the menu in her office for weeks just waiting to use it to smear Abbott & all conservatives.

This is fact.

Desperate measures from a desperate & dishonest politician.

[izabsmiling]

SF, do you have proof of what you say is fact ? 

[izabsmiling]

and if what you say is fact ...so many are telling fibs ...why ?

[catsnknots]

Well, i just watched Mal on TV and he seemed really genuine and a bit peeved... 

Do I think that the people at the restaurant might have already seen it on the night as a bad joke?? 

Yes.. that is a possibility. 

Do I think that a candidate that is trying to win a seat would make up a menu like that??? 

no way... 

[*crikey*mate*]

How could Mal Brough make statements about things he didn't yet know (if the email is to be believed) .

If as reported he knew who wrote the menu earlier yesterday and knew that the author was apologetic (how did he know that ?) ...why did he not say who it was and in the context they were written ? If it was as the email received later says a private joke ..why did he not say that earlier yesterday ????? Why would he seemingly protect the restaurant owner and take the flack himself? He wouldn't would he ? That doesn't make sense .

IF and I say IF the restaurant owner had sexually offensive material in the place where his employees work ...he should be held accountable for that,for writing it and for the trouble it has caused for everyone concerned.

My GUESS is that when the allegedly fake menu was released that Mr Borough contacted the owner of the restaurant to ask what was going on as he had no knowledge of the menus existence until then. (Wasn't he one of the people who said they hadn't read it?)

My GUESS is that he didn't name and shame until he had the whole story and got advice on how to handle the situation rather than go off half informed.

My GUESS is knowing that he was innocent, he left others to sort out the false allegations whilst HE got on with doing HIS job.

My GUESS is that perhaps he didn't want to name and shame a financial contributor (I think it was reported that the owner made donations) supporter unless he needed to and was waiting for advice on how to act and maybe in case once his innocence was revealed that no further action would be required.

Politics is full of mud slinging etc, they all take flack. In this case it seems that he was innocent and had nothing to woirry about. Maybe (and I mean just maybe) it was decided that they would let the story run for a while and let the ALP shoot themselves in the foot (as it appears they have done.) and only intervene if it got out of hand.

After all, who could have predicted that the leader of our country and a trained lawyer would react in such a way before getting any FACTS or PROOF?

My GUESS is that the apology was exactly as it was written. Even though they didn't do it, they were sorry that their PM had been embarrassed in this way and expressed their disgust at the content. Sort of like a small scale version of National Sorry Day.