You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
I'm a bit confused as to why you refer to the "unsubstantiated AWU slush fund allegations" and the "unsubstantiated allegations against Prime Minister Julia Gillard."
If you have just chosen that form of words to cover yourselves legally, there is no need to qualify "allegations" with the word "unsubstantiated."
The Prime Minister is now a person of interest in a Victorian police investigation into the AWU-WRA slush fund being undertaken by the Major Crime and Extortion Group. This collection of the creme de la creme of law enforcement would hardly be dedicating themselves to something which was "unsubstantiated."
Michael Smith (ex-2UE) has collected and posted a huge amount of material which is freely available at michaelsmithnews.com to anyone who chooses to examine it.
JBrogan
Thanks for your comment. It is a fair question.
The reason why we used this form of words is that the allegations have not yet officially been substantiated in any legal judgement. We acknowledge your point that there is now a lot of material in the public domain.
At some stage in the future, if there is a legal finding that validates the accusations and links to the PM, we will use another form of words in future.