Is it over for Rann?

[mighty_tiger_79]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 5828057518

[interested observer]

An agreed defamation payout from Channel 7 to Mikey for statements made by them about his work performance being affected by the Chantelois claims, yet nothing mentioned about any defamation regarding the actual claim of events ??????

[mick]

An agreed defamation payout from Channel 7 to Mikey for statements made by them about his work performance being affected by the Chantelois claims, yet nothing mentioned about any defamation regarding the actual claim of events ??????

Ranndy is trying to spin this one by suggesting the dispute with Channel 7 is fully resolved. However, 7 has not apologised from the allegations of a physical affair with MC. I don't think any alleged affair has affected the Premier's performance in his job, so this is a fair outcome.

[redandblack]

It's an admission of poor and/or biased journalism, which is what I've been saying.

[Jimmy_041]

It's an admission of poor and/or biased journalism, which is what I've been saying.

There is no doubt that the Australian (and the English for that matter) media is sub-standard, but that is not the point. The settlement is not about the alleged trysts but inferences/implications/statements arising from them.

Rann has outrightly denied the trysts, yet has settled with Channel 7 for implications or comments arising out of the woman's allegations. The question is: did he include the allegations of the acts in the defamation proceedings?

If it all comes down to a matter of trust Mike, I dont think you've solved anything

[redandblack]

I haven't commented about the substance of the allegations, except to say that if Rann hasn't told the truth, he would be history and that is the only political matter of substance in this.

However, I'm bemused that Michelle Chantelois would make this public, tell us that she happily accepted an invitation to Rann's office knowing what the invitation was allegedly for, then continue to push the matter publicly, be paid for it and then bemoan the fact that it was public so she had to protect her reputation

The reporting has been very one-sided, complete with posed pictures of MC and the settlement recognises that imbalance and sloppy journalism.

If Rann is shown to have not been truthful, he will rightly have to wear the fallout.

[Jimmy_041]

I haven't commented about the substance of the allegations, except to say that if Rann hasn't told the truth, he would be history and that is the only political matter of substance in this.

However, I'm bemused that Michelle Chantelois would make this public, tell us that she happily accepted an invitation to Rann's office knowing what the invitation was allegedly for, then continue to push the matter publicly, be paid for it and then bemoan the fact that it was public so she had to protect her reputation

The reporting has been very one-sided, complete with posed pictures of MC and the settlement recognises that imbalance and sloppy journalism.

If Rann is shown to have not been truthful, he will rightly have to wear the fallout.

I agree - but are the photos on the front page this morning posed as well? YES

I really dont feel sorry for Rann and his treatment from the media. He was one of them, and as manipulated them ever since he's been in office. Tough luck Mike

[southee]

I haven't commented about the substance of the allegations, except to say that if Rann hasn't told the truth, he would be history and that is the only political matter of substance in this.

However, I'm bemused that Michelle Chantelois would make this public, tell us that she happily accepted an invitation to Rann's office knowing what the invitation was allegedly for, then continue to push the matter publicly, be paid for it and then bemoan the fact that it was public so she had to protect her reputation

The reporting has been very one-sided, complete with posed pictures of MC and the settlement recognises that imbalance and sloppy journalism.

If Rann is shown to have not been truthful, he will rightly have to wear the fallout.

....and on the front page of the Adevertiser today (Monday) we get a photo spread of Media Mike and Sasha arm in arm, all "happy and fluffy".

Im sure the camera guy got that right on time and was not posed at all by Media Mike

[Gozu]

"Heave away you ruler kings-the South Australian election":

http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/3036

[redandblack]

"Heave away you ruler kings-the South Australian election":

http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/3036

Perhaps he should do the Punctuation 101 course.

[Dog_ger]

The longer this goes on, the more I will

Vote 1 Rann.

What's this woman want...?

She is a "NUT CASE"

that cares not for her children.

[Squawk]

The longer it goes on, the more she's got to lose personally if she is not being truthful.

She is now seeking CCTV footage allegedly of her and the Premier at the Casino and at Parliament House.

[Dog_ger]

Even if she is telling the truth Squawk.

Whats her point...?

She dropped her nickas for another man when she was married....?

She says she is defending herself....?

She has admitted everything....

WHO CARES.....

She says she has no importance to speak to Randy....?

WHAT....

Show me FingerPrints.....

Have you ever been in this situation...?

[southee]

The longer this goes on, the more I will

Vote 1 Rann.

What's this woman want...?

She is a "NUT CASE"

that cares not for her children.

I think you have always voted Labour Dogger.....come on mate.

[Squawk]

Even if she is telling the truth Squawk.

Whats her point...?

She dropped her nickas for another man when she was married....?

She says she is defending herself....?

She has admitted everything....

WHO CARES.....

She says she has no importance to speak to Randy....?

WHAT....

Show me FingerPrints.....

Have you ever been in this situation...?

I think her point is in showing support for her husband. Firstly, by her public admission that she was involved in an extra-marital affair and at fault and secondly, seeking an admission from him (assuming she is telling the truth that it was him). An admission by him will go to mitigating sentence in court if he is found guilty. Either way, expect him to be called as a witness.

[Hondo]

My impression is that public opinion is turning against her especially when she threatens to shadow Rann right through the election campaign. There's a line between a woman taken advantage of and woman on a vindictive crusade that she doesn't want to cross. The mood seems to be put up or shut up.

And, no, footage of the 2 of them holding hands is not going to solve her issues!

[RustyCage]

Even if she is telling the truth Squawk.

Whats her point...?

She dropped her nickas for another man when she was married....?

She says she is defending herself....?

She has admitted everything....

WHO CARES.....

She says she has no importance to speak to Randy....?

WHAT....

Show me FingerPrints.....

Have you ever been in this situation...?

I think her point is in showing support for her husband. Firstly, by her public admission that she was involved in an extra-marital affair and at fault and secondly, seeking an admission from him (assuming she is telling the truth that it was him). An admission by him will go to mitigating sentence in court if he is found guilty. Either way, expect him to be called as a witness.

She really showed great support for her husband when she was off shagging another bloke!

[Psyber]

She really showed great support for her husband when she was off shagging another bloke!

Back in the late 1980s I read a survey on infidelity by women in the UK, published in one of the UK medical journals. Women married 10 to 11 years were surveyed and overall 35% admitted to at least two affairs in that time frame. The breakdown by region was interesting too - 25% in Scotland, 35% in England, and 45% in Wales.
I haven't seen figures for men but I suspect they would be even more disturbing...

[Bum Crack]

She really showed great support for her husband when she was off shagging another bloke!

Back in the late 1980s I read a survey on infidelity by women in the UK, published in one of the UK medical journals. Women married 10 to 11 years were surveyed and overall 35% admitted to at least two affairs in that time frame. The breakdown by region was interesting too - 25% in Scotland, 35% in England, and 45% in Wales.
I haven't seen figures for men but I suspect they would be even more disturbing...

You're kidding me. You didn't read another bloody survey???

[shoe boy]

The longer this goes on, the more I will

Vote 1 Rann.

What's this woman want...?

She is a "NUT CASE"

that cares not for her children.

Im with u dogger the more u see this thing the more people ask WTF ?????