And “fanatical support”? You mean because I haven't hung, drawn and quartered her before the trial's even started?
You can't seriously be that thick.
Though I do find it interesting that your mind went from “fantasy shag” to “sister”. I guess it's true what they say about Tasmanians!

Political tirades ? Man, do you have a wake up call coming… at least on my site we're attempting to do some constructive assistance to people under the Centrelink hammer… this site seems to be just your personal rave about Ajay…. sad…

watchdoggie1951

And I understood what you said quite well, thanks. What I don't understand is what your tirades have to do with me or my post. You seem to be trying to imply that I'm endorsing rorting the system, when in actuality all I said was that there could be a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Ajay may have broken the rules, but the reality is that reasonable explanations are not necessarily going to cut the mustard with Centrelink.

You may like to think you're not political, but being an Admin on the forums of an anti-Government-Department website would be enough to be considered political by most folk. Just so you know. :)

If you want to continue your political tirades, I suggest you head back to Centreflunk as that's really not what this blog is about. :)

Fame or notoriety should have NO relevance at all : under the Law, we should be all the same. It is extremely hard to NOT know if you should be telling Centrelink about any income : they put the classification of income on EVERY fornightly form , and in every pamphlet they produce.

I'm not political, but the truth is, John Howard turned Australia into a nation of wimps and dobbers while in power. The ” Guilty until proven innocent ” has become the norm ; and I say again, people who rort the system make it very hard for those who didn't to prove their innocence. I thought I made that point very clear ??

Due to the labelling of all welfare recipients as dishonest and untrustworthy by folks like John Howard, Hockey, Hank Jongen, etc, the general public believe that if Centrelink SAY you're a rorter, then you ARE one !! We have challenged this attitude again and again, but WE don't get the media coverage that those got.

Of course everyone who Centrelink accuse of being guilty ARE NOT !! In fact, using the figures supplied by the ANAO , the REALITY is that only .115 % of all welfare recipients are , in fact, rorting the system !! That means that 99.885 % are doing the right thing ….

And yes… we DO liken Centrelink to a Nazi regime … complete with jackboots and technical genocide …. you take someone's sole income away from them for 8 weeks and tell me HOW they're supposed to survive ?? They've been found guilty by the Ombudsman of conduct OUTSIDE the Australian constitution … and also guilty of taking actions against customers NOT contained within the Social Security Act.

Maybe I should have structured my original post in a different way … but I still say if you've done the dirty, you deserve whatever you get.

watchdoggie1951.

Given that the site you're linking to likens Centrelink to a nazi-esque organisation, I'd've thought you'd be the very last person to defend them harassing someone, particularly when the harassment is only occuring many, many years after the alleged breach.
Are you trying to tell me that everyone accused of wronging Centrelink has always been guilty? Or are they only judged guilty before the trial if they're famous?

People who deliberately rort the system make it so much harder for those who don't yet are accused of it to prove themselves innocent. Centrelink use these deliberate rorters to convince the public that ALL welfare recipients are untrustworthy : so if Centrelink accuse you of rorting, it's a natural assumption that you're guilty !!

If she has, then let her face the music for it ; if she hasn't, then fight it out with them.

watchdoggie1951. http://www.centreflunk.com