3AW - Fairfax Radio Network

What we're talking about

  • David THomas on 'The figures say it all' Statistical evidence mounts that the police often do not recruit the sharpest pencils in the box. Seriously. Turn the ... more
  • John on 'The figures say it all' This is not about fairness, it is about deflecting responsibility. The camera system should conform to vehicles operating ... more
  • Paul on 'The figures say it all' Have a look at the front of any modern bike and you will quickly see why it is not possible to put a front plate on. There ... more
  • CHRIS WATTS on 'The figures say it all' i just cannot believe that a simple e tag cannot be stuck on the front of the bike...its so simple, surely... more
  • Samuel J on 'The figures say it all' Motor cycles should have front and rear number plates. The notion that front number plates dissect pedestrians is complete ... more
  • Mark on 'The figures say it all' All a bit of a joke, here in Europe, bikes get a much larger rear plate... more than double the size. Aussies often hide the ... more
  • Richard on 'The figures say it all' If its such a problem why are the Penisula Link cameras facing the front? The fault is in the camera system. more
  • Tom Bysen on 'The figures say it all' Why not ban bikes altogether? We can all sit jammed on the freeway, in our 2tonne suv's being safe. more
  • John Karmouche on 'The figures say it all' Everyone is barking up the wrong tree. Its not about putting a number plate on a motorcycle- that's the cover story the ... more
  • Lukew on 'The figures say it all' Commissioner Gordon Lewis can huff and puff all he likes but this is about the money. Never mind the doubt, why would we ... more
  • poppitt on 'The figures say it all' Against the law to ride a bike that does have number plates back and front. Fine them $500 for each plate that is not ... more
  • Time for a career change Neil on 'The figures say it all' Gee, it must be almost the 3rd week of the month. Time for Neil to roll out the anti motorcycle vitriol again. The same ... more
  • Otto on 'The figures say it all' Anything to justify the cash cows, how many of these thousands of lethal speeding motorcycles actually result in a fatality ... more
  • Gazza on Top cop concerned over pokies gang Multiculturalism at its finest more
  • dom on Spot the 'ghost'? Sorry the line for popcorn was long... more
  • Rory on Spot the 'ghost'? Why do ghosts always have clothes on? I wonder if a tradie has to wear Hi-Viz if they get a ghost. more
  • charles on Spot the 'ghost'? I see an elderly lady old white shirt, black hair, pale skin sitting at the top of staircase, peering to the right as if ... more
  • Rhees on Spot the 'ghost'? I can see through the railings.Enlarge picture and take a close look, definitely something there.One place i worked at ... more
  • Anne of Dallas on Spot the 'ghost'? Well.. I cant see the ghost.. but I did learn something fabulous from one of the readers in comment! "Enlarge for a better ... more
  • Joanne on Spot the 'ghost'? Enlarge for a better look. To enlarge the photo if using a computer: press control and the plus button at the same time more

EXCLUSIVE VISION: The moments before Geoff Shaw altercation

Posted by: Neil Mitchell | 12 February, 2014 - 8:32 AM

My views on the Member for Fankston Geoff Shaw are very well known

I think he is a political bully.

I think he should not be in the Parliament.

And I think he is a traitor to the people of Frankston because he was elected a Liberal and now spends his days frustrating a Liberal government.

That's what I think.

But now I believe there is even more reason to doubt the bona fides of the Member for Frankston.

I have been leaked a video, and it raises very serious questions about this man.

It is a video that I believe is now also in the hands of the Victoria Police and the Parliamentary Privileges Committee.

And it is here.

Although we have seen video of the incident before, we have never seen the lead-up.

This video is from security cameras placed around the state Parliament.

It goes back to October last year and the ugly scenes involving Geoff Shaw and the taxi drivers who were protesting on the steps of Parliament.

Several of those drivers now face charges but that is a matter for the courts. Four of them were charged including two men in their mid-seventies.

That is not what I am talking about.

Geoff Shaw has always claimed that he was simply going about his business trying to get up the front steps when this turned ugly and he was attacked.

In fact, in a statement on his own website, which is still there, he says: “Today I was walking up the front steps of Parliament House when I observed taxi operators protesting.”

Well, when you look at this video there is reason to doubt that.

There is reason to question whether in fact Geoff Shaw went out of his way to confront the protestors and perhaps even provoke them.

The video clearly shows him walking along the street and into the side entrance of Parliament House on Spring Street the south end of the building.

This leads to the back door where most other members of Parliament apparently entered that day.

As he is walking to this entrance he seems to twice look towards the front steps where the protest was underway and the media was gathered.

Mr Shaw proceeds to the side entrance, heading to the back of Parliament House.

And when he is almost to the door - probably about 20 yards away - he suddenly turns and goes back on his tracks to the side gate and out on to Spring Street.

There he turns right and heads down towards the front steps and the protest.

He appears to wave his hands at the protestors and then climbs up the steps where the altercation occurs.

Now - why?

Why did he head towards the side door apparently after seeing the protesters and apparently change his mind?

Did he deliberately provoke them?

Did he deliberately confront them?

Was it part of a stunt?

Why was it good enough for other members of Parliament to use that entrance on that day?

Why was it good enough for Mr Shaw to intend to do exactly that - to avoid the protest - and then suddenly change his mind and walk into a confrontation?

Was it deliberate?

Only he knows, and only he can say.

He won’t talk to me - he never does - although the offer is there. We called his office about this late yesterday.

But he must answer this at some stage.

It goes to the heart of his credibility and indeed what he has said to his own electorate.

As I said, this tape has been, I believe, handed to police and to the privileges committee.

That is not to say he has done anything wrong.

But it is to say he has questions to answer.

And if he won’t answer me, at least he must answer the committee or the police.


Blog comments Your Say

Post a comment * Mandatory fields