Icy you are entitled to your opinion, as I am. Difference is my opinion is mine your's is driven by Murdoch's shock jocks and the girly boy's who are still sooking about Labor having the first female Prime Minister of distinction.

As my comments are about what is being discussed here on this thread and are of general nature I see no relevance to the question,..

And a special hug for icy

 

 

p.s.  Remains answerable for corruption charges brought against her which are so mired in inconsistencies nobody either can, or has the stamina  to penetrate.

 

that is a load of...... If nobody has the stamina to penetrate (yikes) then where is the info going to come from to charge her!!!!

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@freddie*rooster wrote:

A wonderful Prime Minister who was derided and attacked by the jealous boys who so desperately wanted her job.

 

Well done Julia Gillard you are a women of substance stand proud and tall there are many Australians who admire you.

---

Yeah wonderful.

 

Came into her Prime Ministership by stabbing her boss in the back.

 

Couldn't retain her Prime Ministership because her own party saw her as a liability.

 

Remains answerable for corruption charges brought against her which are so mired in inconsistencies nobody either can, or has the stamina  to penetrate.

 

Can see why she's no longer in politics.

 

 

---

What corruption charges?

She has answered every accusation about corruption clearly, numerous times, including under oath at a royal commission.

---

@kilroy_is_here wrote:
As my comments are about what is being discussed here on this thread and are of general nature I see no relevance to the question,..

---

So someone claims to have read the book, posts their findings and you blindly accept that their review of the book is accurate. OK.

 

 

icy - I even provided you with a video link of Gillards time on the stand at the Royal Commission. You wouldn't be making inaccurate statements if you had watched it. You know when you belatedly tried to make a joke of the former PM calling herself a former PM.

Where have I said it's accurate?
I have made nothing but broad statements that clearly state that if the facts are as stated then this would apply , anything else you read into my responses is your own bias

---

@freddie*rooster wrote:

Icy you are entitled to your opinion, as I am. Difference is my opinion is mine your's is driven by Murdoch's shock jocks and the girly boy's who are still sooking about Labor having the first female Prime Minister of distinction.

---

Nah my opinions are just my opinions, Freddie, and thanks for acknowledging my entitlement to them, never mind about Murdoch and the shock jocks, whoever they may be.

Personally I wouldn't comment unless I had read the book and could confirm whether other persons comments were correct. What is the point of if's and buts? 

---

@am*3 wrote:

And a special hug for icy

 

 

p.s.  Remains answerable for corruption charges brought against her which are so mired in inconsistencies nobody either can, or has the stamina  to penetrate.

 

that is a load of...... If nobody has the stamina to penetrate (yikes) then where is the info going to come from to charge her!!!!

---

Stop trying to cosy up to me, Am, I find it very unsettling.

(((hugz icy))) have a lovely night.