Sensational-Adelaide.com

The State Ombudsman has launched an investigation into Charles Sturt Council after allegations of Labor government influence on elected members. The inquiry may look into the St Clair land swap and detailed allegations that residents had been intimidated by Attorney-General Atkinson's staff, while there are further allegations that Atkinson offered inducements to councillors such as paid seats on committees, or support for Labor pre-selection to induce them to change their vote to support the St Clair land swap. At least four complaints have been lodged with police from people who say they have been personally threatened by the Attorney-General. Other allegations deal with Atkinson's staff filming people taking part in the St Clair protests and being threatened by Atkinson staff 'that they would be made to pay' for their actions in protesting.

The St Clair related complaints may lead back to heavy donations from the developers and SAJC identities to the government's SA Progressive Business 'fund-raising' organisation run by lobbyist and factional identity Nick Bolkus who received a fee of $135,000 for his role in the Cheltenham development.

Charles Sturt Mayor Harold Anderson is also alleged to have received significant donations from the SAJC to encourage him to facilitate the various developments at Cheltenham.

The Ombudsman has also received information about cash 'donations' being requested to allow non-complying developments to occur in the Charles Sturt area. In one case a donation of $30,000 was requested in order to obtain approval for more units than the development plan allowed.

It will be interesting to see if Atkinson's strong factional support from the SDA (the Shoppies) will save him this time, or whether he will be sacrificed as a corrupt anomaly by a party wanting to appear as clean as possible for the March 20th election.

The investigation may re-open the unresolved Ashbourne Affair where a lucrative government post was offered to a former MP in order to secure his vote. Atkinson's office was at the centre of that business as well as the 'Stashed Cash Affair which surfaced some time later.

The Labor party also eats babies

Yer I saw Atkinson with a swastika on the back of his left shoulder and Mike Rann has 666 on his forehead

What's the opposition leader's name again?

Why is this a laughing matter? Every word in my post is correct (if the media are to be trusted).

I'm not pro-Liberal; I'm not a member of any political party nor do I have any contact with any party. I'm simply against corruption.

I'm not jumping at shadows either. For years, I have been posting here pushing the same line: maximum transparency and accountability in government activities, and sound planning behind proposals involving public assets.

If posters here find the concept of the bulk of taxpayers being disadvantaged by a cynical government which sells preferment and hides what it does from its electors, I would remind them that such governments, and the communities they control, do not ultimately prosper.

We need good new development and good redevelopment. We do not need a government which is prepared to compromise our future by selling favours to anyone who pays. The end in this case does not justify the means.

The failed Port development is an example of the flawed approach I'm objecting to. The proposed neither one thing nor the other Adelaide Oval development is another. If we need a stadium, let's build a decent one, not a hopelessly compromised effort.

But above all, let's have honest, responsible government. I believe we have a genuine problem here, otherwise I wouldn't bother.

stumpjumper wrote:Why is this a laughing matter? Every word in my post is correct (if the media are to be trusted).

Don't let it bother you stumpjumper. We appreciate your many informative posts (they truly are eye openers), and i'm sure they are fact based (as you say - if the media is to be trusted), but they are not really 'conversation starting' posts either - hence the 'aussie style' jibes...

Point taken, Wayno.

I might as well admit that I've got a problem with Atkinson. The phrase 'sanctimonious hypocrite' springs very easily to mind. One minute he's preaching; the next minute he's in some back room somewhere doing filthy deals.

As to these deals, I'm neither an innocent nor an altruist. If I go to the racecourse (if I can find one) and punt my cash on a horse, it's my choice. If I buy shares in what I think ids a good prospect, it's my choice. But where my tax is spent is not my choice. I rely on the government to spend that money wisely, and not to waste it lining the pockets of some carpetbagger who blows into town.

Which brings me to Atkinson. Why has he left so suddenly? He says it's 'to spend more time with his family'.

stumpjumper wrote:Point taken, Wayno.

I might as well admit that I've got a problem with Atkinson. The phrase 'sanctimonious hypocrite' springs very easily to mind. One minute he's preaching; the next minute he's in some back room somewhere doing filthy deals.

As to these deals, I'm neither an innocent nor an altruist. If I go to the racecourse (if I can find one) and punt my cash on a horse, it's my choice. If I buy shares in what I think ids a good prospect, it's my choice. But where my tax is spent is not my choice. I rely on the government to spend that money wisely, and not to waste it lining the pockets of some carpetbagger who blows into town.

Which brings me to Atkinson. Why has he left so suddenly? He says it's 'to spend more time with his family'.

Atkinson left because he had become a liability for the government. I know for a fact that he had lost the support of people in his faction.

I agree it's quite likely he has lost the support of the Right, even with his connections. However, he will stay on as the member for Croydon. We'll probably never know the immediate reason for him stepping down as Attorney-General. Neither Mike Rann (unaligned) nor Kevin Foley (right) has mentioned, as far as I've heard or read, Atkinson's move. I think it was probably part of some factional deal which will result in a new Attorney-General. It may also be related to the ongoing investigations of Atkinson.

stumpjumper wrote:I agree it's quite likely he has lost the support of the Right, even with his connections. However, he will stay on as the member for Croydon. We'll probably never know the immediate reason for him stepping down as Attorney-General. Neither Mike Rann (unaligned) nor Kevin Foley (right) has mentioned, as far as I've heard or read, Atkinson's move. I think it was probably part of some factional deal which will result in a new Attorney-General. It may also be related to the ongoing investigations of Atkinson.

Mate, there is no conspiracy. I know for a fact he lost the support of his faction. He had committed way too many gaffes and other embarrasments that had cost the party dearly with voters. The right had enough of him.

stumpjumper wrote:I agree it's quite likely he has lost the support of the Right, even with his connections. However, he will stay on as the member for Croydon.

Only till next election, He's leaving his seat before that date, so someone else can take over, he said so himself.

The man in an embarrassment on so many levels, calling one of the voters in his own electorate not a real person is a fine example.

In that case, I'm wondering what we' re letting him get away with.

Consider this:

It’s funny how the ALP’s election fraud team targeted the preferences of Robert Brokenshire’s Family First voters in their corrupt scheme.

Some with longer than goldfish memories will remember Robert Brokenshire’s maiden speech to Parliament as a Family First MLC on Tuesday 29 July 2008.

In that speech Brokenshire took aim at WorkCoverSA and fired both barrels.

In 2992, WorkCoverSA’s unfunded future liability was no more than $70 million. Then Labor won the 2002 election.The unfunded liability is now a shade over $1.000.000.000 - $1 billion.

Brokenshire railed against the organization, its chairman, Rann’s best friend Philip Bentley and its board. The self-styled Queen Bee of the board is Sandra De Poi, who dished out the dodgy Family First leaflets with her boyfriend Leon Bignell.

Le Poi’s company, De Poi Consulting Services is an Injuries Management and workplace Rehabilitation Provider for workers compensation claimants. De Poi Consulting is a major cash donor to the ALP.

De Poi Consulting has picked up $6 million in WorkCover rehab cases over gthe last three years. In charge of WorkCover’s long term clients is Employers Mutual Limited which employs De Poi’s best friend Ruth Marshall, who has been accused of flicking millions dollars’ worth of business to De Poi Consulting. Elaine Solomon who works for De Poi is an ex-EML honcho.

Given the bucket tipped on WorkCover and De Poi by Brokenshire it’s no surprise that De Poi and her boyfriend Bignell would try to screw Brokenshire’s party.

Then there’s the question of the single family who have admitted voting 155 times for Labor at the election, and the business of the ALP strategists bussing in seasoned ‘fraudulent how to vote’ operators from interstate.

Rann of course knows nothing and neither does master strategist Atkinson, who suddenly retired from his post of Attorney General.

And there’s apparently no conflict of interest having De Poi on the WorkCover board, despite her being a major donor to and recipient from WorkCover.

A call to Rann’s office yesterday revealed that while Rann would support the unfeasible national ICAC of someone else were to start one, there is no call for one in SA.

Yet Rann is listening closely to ‘them’ as he calls the people of SA. ‘They’ have a different culture in SA and don’t need an ICAC.