Talk:Kathy Jackson

Kathy Jackson's knowledge of Thompson misuse of position

@Skyring:, Please explain how "It has recently been disclosed that Jackson was aware of Thomson misusing his position for twelve years before coming forward." is not supported by the source http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/how-the-friend-kathy-jackson-never-knew-revealed-creditcard-abuse-12-years-earlier/story-fn59noo3-1227006472214.

From the source "WHISTLEBLOWER Kathy Jackson was allegedly told about secret American Express cards supplied to now convicted former union leaders Michael Williamson and Craig Thomson more than 12 years before she alerted authorities to their large-scale fraud.".

It does not get any clearer. AlanS (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly no Kathy Jackson fan, but there is one very glaring difference between those two sentences. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The full article which you can read if you subscribe, says that the secret credit cards were coerced out of business by Williams/Thompson and provided to them. When the business did finally cancel the cards the union gave it less business. If that doesn't amount to misuse of position, I don't know what does. Further, it says that Jackson was made aware of the situation by her then friend 12 years ago. AlanS (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Disclosed" is a weasel word. But the main problem is the statement that KJ knew all the details of Thomson's behaviour and was therefore an accomplice in his crimes. That's the BLP problem right there. --Pete (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Does it work for you if the word disclosed is changed to reported? I'd say there isn't any BLP problem including the material as it is reporting on claims made by Carron Gilleland and The Australian. AlanS (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You're grotesquely oversimplifying what the article actually states. There is an allegation that Jackson was once told of concerns that the credit cards (which are but one part of the Thomson scandal) existed and were being misused. "It has recently been disclosed that Jackson was aware of Thomson misusing his position for twelve years before coming forward" is misleading as hell and makes this out to be much bigger than claimed in the actual source. I think I would be okay with a brief but actually accurate summary of this article going in, but it's fairly complicated to explain and as this was, from memory, not something generally picked up in the wider press (and Jackson is not someone who is short on press coverage) I can see a big risk of undue weight being put on this one allegation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm sure there will be more to come out. It's early days of the royal commission holding her to account. AlanS (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you'd be much better off focusing on adding information regarding the Royal Commission revelations and the HSU litigation (as you raised on the WikiProject talk page), where you'd be standing on much stronger ground, and both of which really do need mentioning here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've started a section on the royal commission. I'll do some more reading at a later date before I think about adding anything about the litigation. AlanS (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Just generally, I'd really advise being much more cautious about how you're summarising stories when you're dealing with legal issues surrounding a BLP. The Royal Commission section is not as egregious as the issues raised above but it's again oversimplified and missing key details and context. This is the sort of area where, for your own self-interest as much as anything else, you should be treading carefully. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

May I note that BLP also applies to talk pages. Some of those comments above should get retracted. This is not a discussion forum for airing personal views on living people who are very likely looking at their own pages and are notable enough to have media people also checking. As per the note at the top of the page. --Pete (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Pete, is there any chance you feel like taking a crack at the Royal Commission section? I'm uncomfortable with what's there at the moment, but there needs to be something or else the article is out of date. I'm just pretty gunshy these days about BLP on legal issues, especially when it's so controversial and currently-in-the-press. This is especially so when I can't stand the subject, as I'd rather not risk that bias creeping in. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been following it. I'm not much of a one for creating new material; I prefer stamping on polemic. --Pete (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Post Royal Commission

With the 'Jackson affair' not being over and further proceedings in Victoria recommended it would be interesting to know what she studied in Melbourne and in Harvard and then who paid for the Harvard studies. Maybe it was a scholarship? I always find it interesting to see what made the person we see today, hero or villain, and maybe determine some patterns which social structures lead to what. 121.209.56.11 (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I also am interested in what made the person who they are and where the funding came from. I never found out who funded Aung Sang Su Kyi in the many years she was under house arrest, who paid her maid to go shopping? And the NZ shooter travelled around the world - but who funded him is never mentioned. In all these cases we then tend to think 'who would be interested in building up a person who owes us'? The proceedings against Jackson seem to have slowed down to her not having the funds for legal representation.2001:8003:AC60:1400:81A7:C653:734B:D24F (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)