James Ashby has less experience than me in the writing of plausible dialogue and he should have have come to me, or to somebody like me, before he put up as evidence the following exchange:
SLIPPER: Have you ever come in a guy’s arse before?
ASHBY: That is not a question you ask, Peter.
As dialogue the question is fine, but the answer is all over the place. No Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celt or Aussie Bloke in an intimate situation addresses the person before him, an inch or two away, or even three feet away, by their Christian name. To do that is to show aggression — as in ‘Thank you for that question, Kerry. Let me first say, and I want to make this perfectly clear, that I have NEVER, EVER’ … and so on.
You call a person by his name if you are having a fight with him, or if he’s two rooms away, and he can’t hear you and you’re trying to achieve his attention. But no-one, no-one does it when the two of you are one-to-one and up close; except for Jewish mothers, who are always angry with their progeny anyway, and shout at them most of the time.
To show how implausible it is, let us rewrite the dialogue just a little, adding only one more word.
SLIPPER: Have you ever come in a man’s arse before, James?
ASHBY: That is not a question you ask, Peter.
The superfluity of the two Christian names is hereby demonstrated. They are vividly unnecessary, both times.
So it’s likely — though of course, m’lud, not certain — that the Ashby line was made up, or misremembered. What he probably said was either ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘don’t ask’ or ‘Are you asking me were you my first? No, you weren’t, Sweetness, you most certainly weren’t.’ His line as written would have made Terence Rattigan aghast, and, if kept in the script, would have caused him to leave the production.
Another line he is SAID to have said is ‘I am openly gay, Peter’. Even with the ‘Peter’ left out (if that’s the phrase I want), this phrase as a self-description has no precedent in human speech or animal grunting since neolithic times.
It is possible, of course, it was Ashby who said it first. He is a bit of a trend-setter. He is, for instance, the first thirty-four year old homosexual male to file a civil suit for sexual harassment in world history, I would think. I may be wrong about this. But he is a trail-blazer.
And how sinister and silly and sneaky this is getting. It has what we know in the trade as the Salusinski Stain all over it, and the puppet-strings of a man unfit to run an international corporation.
You’d think Rupert could afford a better dialogue writer than this. Or would understand the need.
But perhaps he was inattentive that week, learning and rewriting and re-rehearsing his own lines, which he did rather well.
Name:
If this was an isolated incident then you might have grounds to see it as an attempt to discredit an ordained minister and speaker of the house of representatives.
But given that there are other court documents involving other people apart from Ashby, young males who have alleged to have issued court documents of sexual harassment against Slipper:
“Peter made advances on me and I said ‘no’,” the documents state.
The document further states: “The junior male staff member showed Megan Hobson scabs on his knuckles where he said he had recently hit a brick wall while defending himself against an attack by Peter Slipper during a parliamentary trip to Adelaide.”
It starts to look very shabby indeed.
Where do you draw the line? Are you saying that Rupert Murdoch is making these allegations up against Slipper?
No, but I’m saying it has ‘Murdoch’ written all over it, especially the timing. If Labor is having a good week, you pull out the next scandal.
Murdoch did not intervene in the six times Slipper was re-endorsed. He did in the lead-up to a Budget that would do Labor some good.
Thank you for asking. It is good to see you back, and so loyal to this ‘unfit person’ you work for and swear by.
And, I guess, like Rebekah, will take the fall for.
Being a person who carries out homosexual acts is no longer an offence known to Australian law.
The only issue is whether what Slipper supposedly said and did amounts to sexual harassment.
I have seen a transcript of the Statement of Claim. For what it is worth, my take is that the claim should be laughed out of court.
As an admonition of a somewhat creepy old pervert in which you are subtly attempting to convey both the absurdity of their question, your own distaste, and re-instating the bounds of a professional relationship, it is plausible.
It’s not what Slipper is said to have said that seems false to me, a dialogue writer, but what Ashby is said to have said, which are the words a compromised man might say to a secret microphone he knows to be in the room, or on his body.
And this, if so, points to a conspiracy of three high party leaders against the third most high official in the land.
For which they might, just might, now go to gaol.
Well, according to Frank, there are supporting documents which would seem to confirm the conduct complained of, the implication being Frank has seen the documents as he quotes from them. But according to Doug Quixote who says that he has seen the Court documents, there is no substance in the claim.
Surely both cannot be correct. Presumably, at some stage, we will find out which one is telling porkies.
Frank lies all the time. And the worst Doug does is enthuse against the Stradfordists, and in favour of De Vere.
Frank says I exploit my dead sister.
Or was that Terrance?
My comments are taken from the Herald Sun newspaper.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/claims-baillieu-adviser-hid-old-slipper-claims/story-fn7x8me2-1226335232517
It would not profit me to lie.
I could lay claim to authority, but I won’t. What I will say is that those who know me by my works, and know Frank by his can make their own judgement.
Doug is well qualified to give a legal opinion, if I am not mistaken.
Here’s a link to the Ashby filing:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-23/peter-slipper-case/3966738
I have now read the documents on the webpage provided by Never Enough Ellis.
Leaving aside the sexual harassment allegations for the purposes of this comment, what puzzles me is why the allegations about the travel vouchers form part of this guy’s claim. How can a fraud on the Commonwealth, if the allegations are proved, be relevant to a claim by Ashby against the Commonwealth (joint respondent with Slipper). Beats me.
It is truly amazing, dawsonb :
“the Applicant was forced to witness the Second Respondent sign multiple
cab
charge vouchers
without
any details being completed, and witness the
Second
Respondent hand them to the driver”
The poor dear! Apparently his virtue was endangered by witnessing :
Shock! Horror!
“Possible Unlawful Conduct”.
(Headlines to be in 96pt type)
If only Slipper had asked Ashby to marry him, instead of the questioning his sexual history, Abbott could have attended the wedding, won back his daughter’s respect and carried the Greens with him.
If only Strauss-Kahn had sent flowers, this weekend in France would look different.
And this last year in the world.
Which Strauss-Kahn, not in gaol, would have economically fixed.
Or at the very least, mitigated.
In the crucial days he was in prison.
And the European economy in turbulence.
The sexual harassment charges made by Ashby will probably fail in a court of law.
Slipper did not harass Ashby it seems after his advances were rejected.
That’s the crux of the matter.
The rest is just gay banter. He said – she said etc…No crime for Slipper to put the hard word on Ashby. When rejected Slipper went cool on Ashby.
Fair enough.
Thinking about this a little more – and yes it seems Bob has a valid point about the sordid business of politics and muck raking.
The Libs could see the value of tearing down Slipper a turncoat and damage the government by encouraging Ashby to take on Slipper in the courts knowing his action will fail.
But by then the damage is done.
Poor Ashby is a mere pawn in this dirty game.
Thats politics.
I think that is correct, Frank. Ashby has been led on by those whose ambitions are their touchstone and who care not a jot for Ashby.
I would feel more for him if his dialogue was better.
- Let me just take my shirt off, Peter
- Thank you, Jim
- What should we talk about now?
- I don’t know, what do you want to talk about?
- Allegedly handing out blank cabcharge vouchers is wrong, Peter.
- Damn you for that, Jim. I’m going to sexually harass you now whether you like it not, Jim. I’m about to do it right now. Roooaaarrrr!!!
Fin
- Let me just take my shirt off, Peter
- Thank you, Jim
- What should we talk about now?
- I don’t know, what do you want to talk about?
- Allegedly handing out blank cabcharge vouchers is wrong, Peter.
- Damn you for that, Jim. I’m going to sexually harass you now whether you like it not, Jim. I’m about to do it right now. Roooaaarrrr!!!
- Thank you driver, just pull in over here, just here, that’s right, thankyou.
- No problems gentlemen. Will that be cash or card?
FIN
Look, it needs work. But you’re not without talent.
If Rubbery Figures ever comes back, you’ve got the job.