Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Blogging » Expensive Beano: O’Farrell Quits Over Wine Lie

Expensive Beano: O’Farrell Quits Over Wine Lie

Advertisements

13 Comments

  1. Richard Ryan says:

    Another Liberal hits the dust—-nothing is a crime,until you are caught.

  2. richard ryan says:

    $3000 for a bottle of vino, and I whinge about $5 dollars for a bottle of wine. Who the f#ck would pay $3000 for a bottle of wine? They got to be rich f#ck-wits.

  3. richard ryan says:

    Anybody who pays $3000 for a bottle of wine, needs some waterboarding!

  4. JohnG says:

    I was brought up with the notion that a “lie” was when information given by someone was in contradiction to the information known by that person. Your headline suggests I have been wrong all these years !!!

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    John, O’Farrell “lied” because he said – emphatically and under oath – that he “did not receive the bottle of wine” and would “certainly have recalled a gift like that”, or words to that effect. He clearly did receive it, as his handwritten note clearly demonstrated. He did not say, under oath, that he “could not recall” receiving it. He said, he did “not” receive it. And that was a lie. Under oath.

  6. GD says:

    O’Farrell “lied” because he said – emphatically and under oath – that he “did not receive the bottle of wine” and would “certainly have recalled a gift like that”, or words to that effect. He clearly did receive it, as his handwritten note clearly demonstrated. He did not say, under oath, that he “could not recall” receiving it. He said, he did “not” receive it. And that was a lie. Under oath.

    Yes, Ray, and he has resigned for that.

    What else do you want him to do?

  7. Ray Dixon says:

    What else do you want him to do?

    Hmm, let’s see ……..

    He could ……….

    Just ……………….

    Tell …………

    THE TRUTH.

    (About everything)

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Have you never been convinced that something is true, argued loudly that it is was and then discovered that you were wrong?

    You see I don’t think that O Farrell was deliberately telling untruths rather I believe that he was just horribly wrong and mistaken.Unlike the shifty mob you barrack for see a decent man who stuffed up and did the honourable thing.

  9. Ray Dixon says:

    You’re either unaware of the full story or turning a blind eye to it, Iain. To start with, on the matter of the gift, it is inconceivable that O’Farrell did not remember it but, even if he had forgotten, why didn’t he just say so? Why? Well, because he didn’t want to do a ‘Sinodinos’ and say “I can’t recall that”, because that’d show him in the same light as Shifty Sino. So he took the other option of flatly denying having received it. I guess he didn’t count on Di Girolamo keeping the thank you note – who does that? Anyway, the point is, O’Farrell lied about the gift because he wanted to distance himself from the dirtbag Di Girolamo, with whom he had been well associated and who he had helped win a $100 million dodgy water contract. There’s more here if you want to become more acquainted with this, Iain:

    Two weeks after receiving the bottle of Grange Hermitage that would lead to his resignation as premier, Barry O’Farrell was preparing to appoint the man who bought the extravagant gift, businessman Nick Di Girolamo, to a well-paid position on a government board.

    As I said, O’Farrell might have deliberately lied in order to give himself an excuse to step down – over a realtively minor matter – before the shit really hit the fan over the other donations and the awarding of the big $100 mill contract. He had to know his days were numbered.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    The thing is I don’t buy the idea that in this day and age when everything is traceable and forever recorded in one way or another that O’Farrell would be stupid enough to tell a flat out “lie” about this. His claims to have inadvertently said something that was factually wrong is just far more plausible that your essentially conspiricist argument. I am going with my gut and occam’s razor on this one. Namely that the most obvious answer is the correct one O’Farrell forgot about the plonk and now he has paid the price for his forgetfulness

  11. Ray Dixon says:

    His claims to have inadvertently said something that was factually wrong is just far more plausible that your essentially conspiricist argument.

    There’s nothing “conspiratorial” about my argument, Iain. In fact, it’s not really an argument, it’s more a presentation of facts. The fact is that O’Farrell was very well acquainted and cosy with the gift-giver Di Girolamo, and well aware of the AWH dodgy deals. And he didn’t “inadvertently” say something, he deliberately said he didn’t receive the gift. That’s also a fact. He was asked a direct question, he didn’t “inadvertently” deny it, Iain, that’s laughable. Here’s the definition of inadvertently:

    Inadvertently is an adverb that means “without knowledge or intent,” ….. When you do something inadvertently, you don’t mean to do it

    And O’Farrell certainly meant to deny receiving the gift. That’s deliberate, not inadvertent. It was no accident, Iain. By definition, it can’t be.

  12. richard ryan says:

    O THOU invisible spirit of wine, if thou hast no name to be known by, let us call thee devil.– William Shakespeare.

  13. richard ryan says:

    The moral of the story: Beware of a gift of a $3000 bottle of wine from a so called friend, as it may leave a sour taste in the mouth at a later date. Now where does the gift giver Di Girolamo stand in this sorry saga? does he still have influence, gee he is a creepy looking figure—gives me the shivers—does he carry piano wire in his pocket?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: