SA Footy

The Labor Govt has gone on the attack saying that the question of trust is an important one in the upcoming state election.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/kevin-foley-accuses-liberals-isobel-redmond-over-chantelois-issue/story-e6frea6u-1225828182255
Kevin Foley accuses Liberals, Isobel Redmond over Chantelois issue

TREASURER Kevin Foley has accused the Liberals and leader Isobel Redmond of "exploiting" the Michelle Chantelois issue in a bid to win the election.

He called on the media to investigate links between the woman who has alleged she had an affair with Premier Mike Rann and the Liberal Party.

When asked if he had any evidence of any links, Mr Foley said he had none.

"We are not out there doing what the Liberals are doing which is working hand in hand with other people to put nonsense up like the Chantelois factor," he said.

"I wish people would look at the links between the Chantelois issue and the Liberal Party in this state but, no, that's a bit too difficult."

Mr Foley said the Liberal Party was exploiting the issue for all it was worth.

"But that's a sideshow. It's quite obvious to the passive observer that there's a lot of politics being played here and the Liberal Party is exploiting the issue," he said.

Mr Foley defended Mr Rann on the question of trust, saying he was the most experienced politician in the state.

He said it was about time the media put Ms Redmond under the same scrutiny.

He denied the Premier was ducking and weaving to avoid the media and described Ms Redmond as "a great big risk with no experience in Government".

The question of trust has become a central issue in the state election campaign following an Advertiser poll last week which showed 51 per cent of voters said Ms Redmond was more trustworthy than Mr Rann, who got only 34 per cent support.

The Government has gone on the front foot over the past three days in a bid to try to turn the attack back on Ms Redmond and the Opposition - demanding that the Liberals be put under more scrutiny by the media.

Trust Labor, who say we don't need an Independent Commission Against Corruption.

I heard Foley this morning

Twice he said he had no evidence at all of a connection between the Liberals and this woman but he kept hammering on about it

He said that the media should be investigating any links so David asked whether they should also be investigating the links between Rann and the woman - "No" came back the answer but you should be investigating them

And he wants us to trust them - NFL

One great comment - Redmond is untried as a Premier - why would you trust her?

errrr - so was Mike, Kev........

He made a fool of himself this morning - just a bully boy who got shot down with proper questioning about his comments

Jimmy_041 wrote:One great comment - Redmond is untried as a Premier - why would you trust her?

errrr - so was Mike, Kev........

Also untried as Premier are Kevin, Paul, Pat, Mick, John, Michael, Jane, Jay, Karlene, Jennifer, Paul, Gail, Tom and Michael.

So one day when Mike is no longer there, that quote will be an interesting one to revisit.

as good as Mike wanting Olsen to take a lie detector then refusing one himself

Come on Mike - that will prove your innocence. Pass it and even I will vote for you

I think you'll agree that the media have put Chantelois under no investigation at all.

She made it all public, she continues to push it.

The Advertiser run with her side of the story for all they're worth, including page 1 photos with her posing in a tree!

Rann has been put under plenty of pressure, I would have thought it balanced journalism to investigate her motives and links also.

Forlorn hope in Adelaide, of course.

redandblack wrote:I think you'll agree that the media have put Chantelois under no investigation at all.

She made it all public, she continues to push it.

The Advertiser run with her side of the story for all they're worth, including page 1 photos with her posing in a tree!

Rann has been put under plenty of pressure, I would have thought it balanced journalism to investigate her motives and links also.

Forlorn hope in Adelaide, of course.

A least it takes the "gloss and spin" the Advertiser has given Labour all these years.....

They have had a pretty good ride.

redandblack wrote:I think you'll agree that the media have put Chantelois under no investigation at all.
She made it all public, she continues to push it.

The Advertiser run with her side of the story for all they're worth, including page 1 photos with her posing in a tree!

Rann has been put under plenty of pressure, I would have thought it balanced journalism to investigate her motives and links also.

Forlorn hope in Adelaide, of course.

Do you know they haven't? Their solicitors would have put them through hoops before allowing them to release the allegations - that's the way the media works

redandblack wrote:I think you'll agree that the media have put Chantelois under no investigation at all.

R&B - Chantelois' letter to MR began as follows:

Dear Mike,
I know that your people have been very busy trying to uncover the cause for me
wanting to speak out about our affair. It is nothing to do with politics or payback.
Nobody put me up to this. And, let me assure you, it had nothing to do with the
small amount of money I received.
I did it because I wanted to put into context the circumstances in which my
husband did what he did. He was heading for a court hearing without anyone
knowing the history and was being subjected to intense public scrutiny.

So the Labor Party (by her account) have been doing an investigation of their own, but have come up with nothing so far. The other day, Atkinson said he had no idea who or what was behind Chantelois. Today, Foley is blaming the Libs (albeit admitting he has no evidence of their involvement) and asking for the media to help them out with an investigation. WTF?

Could it no be possible that the media has investigated Chantelois and come up with nothing themselves? According to her, her motivation is simple:

"I simply want my reputation restored and I am asking you directly to assist in this."

In other words, she wants him to (publicly) admit his role that she has alleged he had (with her).

I suspect the media is somewhat angry that MR carefully crafted responses at the time of his alleged attack that left them believing it was random in nature. When asked if he knew his attacker, IIRC he responded by saying "I have never met him before."

The problem for Labor is that there are a lot more unanswered questions from the victim of the attack and the alleged second party in an affair. This is in contrast to Chantelois, for whom the answer to only one question remains unconfirmed - what is her motivation? She has given her own account (above - extract from letter) but given no other possible motivation has been uncovered, maybe everyone just has to accept her at her word (noting she has successfully undertaken the polygraph in relation to the underlying issue).

Link to full letter is here:

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2010/02/07/1225827/473499-an-pdf-chantelois.pdf

southee wrote:

redandblack wrote:I think you'll agree that the media have put Chantelois under no investigation at all.

She made it all public, she continues to push it.

The Advertiser run with her side of the story for all they're worth, including page 1 photos with her posing in a tree!

Rann has been put under plenty of pressure, I would have thought it balanced journalism to investigate her motives and links also.

Forlorn hope in Adelaide, of course.

A least it takes the "gloss and spin" the Advertiser has given Labour all these years.....

They have had a pretty good ride.

Southee, the Advertiser has been a conservative paper for more than 50 years. It has never given Labor a 'good ride', including now.

Jimmy_041 wrote:

redandblack wrote:I think you'll agree that the media have put Chantelois under no investigation at all.
She made it all public, she continues to push it.

The Advertiser run with her side of the story for all they're worth, including page 1 photos with her posing in a tree!

Rann has been put under plenty of pressure, I would have thought it balanced journalism to investigate her motives and links also.

Forlorn hope in Adelaide, of course.

Do you know they haven't? Their solicitors would have put them through hoops before allowing them to release the allegations - that's the way the media works

My point remains, Jimmy.

They've barely mentioned it in their paper.

Investigative and balanced journalism? - refer my note to southee.

redandblack wrote:

southee wrote:

redandblack wrote:I think you'll agree that the media have put Chantelois under no investigation at all.

She made it all public, she continues to push it.

The Advertiser run with her side of the story for all they're worth, including page 1 photos with her posing in a tree!

Rann has been put under plenty of pressure, I would have thought it balanced journalism to investigate her motives and links also.

Forlorn hope in Adelaide, of course.

A least it takes the "gloss and spin" the Advertiser has given Labour all these years.....

They have had a pretty good ride.

Southee, the Advertiser has been a conservative paper for more than 50 years. It has never given Labor a 'good ride', including now.

You must be joking R&B...

Labor have had a dream run up until now, much to do with the fact that they haven't had much of an opposition.

We're now seeing what happens when the ability to spin dries up...

PS. Still expect Rann and his cronies to be in government after the election though...

squawk, I happen to agree with you that Rann has been very badly advised on this.

My points relate to her motives and restoring her reputation can't be one of them, as she was the only one to go public with the details, a role she has continued to enjoy more and more.

Restore her reputation? She's going about it in a strange way. Her actions have taken it well beyond that and I question her motives. Obviously the Advertiser doesn't, or at least is not mentioning it.

I'm not defending Rann for a moment, but I think there's a lot more to her motives that should be looked at, seeing that she is the only one who has facilitated the destruction of her reputation.

I'm not joking, Clarrie.

In the history of the Advertiser, 95% minimum of their output would be toeing the conservative line. If you don't agree with that, you're a lost cause.

redandblack wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:

redandblack wrote:I think you'll agree that the media have put Chantelois under no investigation at all.
She made it all public, she continues to push it.

The Advertiser run with her side of the story for all they're worth, including page 1 photos with her posing in a tree!

Rann has been put under plenty of pressure, I would have thought it balanced journalism to investigate her motives and links also.

Forlorn hope in Adelaide, of course.

Do you know they haven't? Their solicitors would have put them through hoops before allowing them to release the allegations - that's the way the media works

My point remains, Jimmy.

They've barely mentioned it in their paper.

Investigative and balanced journalism? - refer my note to southee.

Maybe they have to use the same line as Rann that it is sub-judice, although that doesn't stop him commenting when it suits him

Sorry - barely mentioned what?

redandblack wrote:Squawk, my points relate to her motives and restoring her reputation can't be one of them, as she was the only one to go public with the details, a role she has continued to enjoy more and more.

I agree it is a strange motivation. However, there are only three possible ways out of this for the Advertiser that I can see, based on your line of query:

1. The Advertiser comes out and says it has done an investigation of its own and turned up nothing (if it has done one). (Would this help the reporting? Unlikely).
2. MR gives his side of the story (not gonna happen).
3. Media reporting on the two court cases to come - the assault matter and the defamation matter.

Hypothetically, what if another Chantelois appeared? Does that change anything for the voters, the Govt or the Advertiser then? The court cases?

Re News Ltd, they are a conservative organisation. However, IIRC they came out in 2006 in their Editorial and backed a second term for Rann. They also did a pretty good job and contributing to the demise of the Libs in 2002 with their reporting on the sale of Power assets. Then there was the Olsen/Motorola affair (fair enough). More recently, they assisted in scuttling MHS on the dodgy documents affair (fair enough).

Squawk, I'll ignore Jimmy's usual nonsense, but you deserve an answer.

I think your first option is right. That's what they should have done, or at least queried her motivation. Instead, they've been a totally one-sided barracking chorus.

If another Chantelois appeared, or even if the court cases prove Chantelois right, then Rann would be rightly history and would deserve to be. That still doesn't chnage my point about her motivation.

As for the Advertiser, I think your points are correct, but probably prove my point. The fact that we remember the few times they've supported Labor in their history is instructive.

"Premier assaulted at public function by ex-husband of woman who claims to have had a sexual relationship with him".

Yep, I'd expect the Advertiser to handle this one even handedly...

Of course they're going to milk it for all it's worth. Anyone who would think otherwise is naive or plain stupid. As I've said before though, it's really removing the focus of attention from the Rann Government failings.

People won't change their vote because Media Mike might have had a relationship with a married woman...

Clarrie, I'd hope for more than a one-dimensional response.

That diatribe doesn't alter the fact that they haven't bothered to query her at all and have actively used her to further their own agenda.

Ditto Channel 7.

See any link anywhere?

My comments may be nonsense to you but they may just relate to, what I consider, your nonsense. You think your comments are fair and balanced, but they never are.

Before the media release accusations like this one, their "evidence" is severely scrutinised by the outlet's solicitors in the event of legal action for defamation, such has happened here. The evidence, that Channel 7 has, will be scrutinised in Court.

I agree with CC - I'd rather the media scrutinise the failings of this government, but then Kev gets on the radio this morning and brings it all up again. AND admits he has no proof.