Former Wikileaks Party staffer says Assange’s father was the “caller” that led to resignations

By on

Screen Shot 2013-08-18 at 4.17.48 PM

Former Wikileaks Party social media captain Sean Bedlam – who is also a member of the Wikileaks Australian Citizens Alliance – has said that he was one of the recipients of the series of calls that led to the mass resignation of Leslie Cannold and six others (including himself), and has revealed the identity of the caller.

In a series of tweets, he has identified John Shipton – the party’s secretary and Julian Assange’s father – as the person who made the calls.

“John Shipton called me yesterday and offered to draw me in to form a small group that would go around [the Wikileaks Party’s] National Council,” he tweeted.

“Shipton made it clear he held [the] National Council in no regard and wanted me to join him in going around it. Dodgy as.”

Bedlam also says that Shipton also offered access to Assange; and that Shipton was the one who did not want the independent review promised yesterday after the preferences fiasco to be independent nor to be held before the election.

Bedlam said, in a tweet response today, that it Shipton “spat all over the plan” to conduct the independent review.

“He made it impossible to stay. He saw Council, volunteers, everyone really, as rubbish people with no depth. Rudd level ego. In a lot of ways he is The One. It’s of course more complex, but I’m not interested in attacking people who weren’t haters.” he added.

Although Shipton has not been named as the “caller” in Leslie Cannold’s resignation statement, Bedlam’s reasons to resign also match what she outlined. Cannold said that a “member of the party” made disparaging comments about the National Council, wanted to form a faction to take the party in a new direction, and the independent review would not be conducted.

“This person said that the review would be delayed until after the election and that it wouldn’t be done independently. The caller would run it,” Cannold said in her resignation statement yesterday.

Join the Conversation

  • Radguy1

    And if the membership body disagreed with the National Council?

    In principle, I support the National Council’s decision, but if a groundswell of the membership body were unhappy (which is not beyond the realms of possibility) what then?

  • questioner

    With all due respect to Mr Bedlam et al., as a mere voter, who wishes to vote for Julian with the, admittedly probably overoptimistic, goal of saving his liberty (and perhaps even life) from the good offices of the grand jury, by getting someone into the Senate who will barrack for Julian and Wikileaks from the grass rooftop of Capital Hill (presumably like his OWN FATHER, John), I could not care less about allegedly ‘unprincipled’ frigging preference deals. Do whatever deals need to be done to get SOMEONE in the Senate. Again with respect to Leslie Cannold and her six confreres, John and Julian Assange have a lot more skin in this very serious game and should be allowed to call it however they see fit.

    • Jason Chaplin

      Those who resigned didn’t do so on the basis of the preference deals as such, but because the processes that the party was founded on were corrupted. As desperate as Julian’s situation might be, it’s no excuse for betraying the membership and other supporters (including Scott Ludlam, a staunch advocate who is very much in the senate), and dragging the reputations of candidates and council members through the mud, people who gave their trust and volunteered their time. If Julian needed autocratic control, as Daniel Mathews wrote in his statement, ‘[h]e really ought not to have set up a party with internal democracy.’