# Will Craig Thomson finally give us some relief?



## dutchie (24 August 2011)

Will the saga of Craig Thomsons' credit card abuse bring down the government?

Irrespective of whether Craig Thomson is lying or not I just cannot understand why the members of the Health Services Union are not complaining about the misuse of their money!

The leadership of this union should resign in shame.

(is it no wonder that many workers do not want to pay dues to a Union).


----------



## drsmith (24 August 2011)

Andrew Bolt sums it up as follows,



> Extraordinarily, his union credit card was used to withdraw $100,000 over five years from ATMs. It was also used to pay for prostitutes, and the vouchers for at least two of those payments were endorsed with his driver’s licence number and a signature that looks like his.
> 
> His mobile phone was also used to ring those escort agencies, in between calls to Labor and union powerbrokers.
> 
> ...



and, most importantly,



> If Thomson is telling the truth, a forgery was committed and union funds stolen. If he’s lying, a fraud was committed.




This is a point the government and union are not too keen to address. Perhaps they know the truth.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/


----------



## Calliope (24 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> This is a point the government and union are not too keen to address. Perhaps they know the truth.




Craig Emerson , who is Craig Thompson's flat-mate, was quite annoyed when questioned on this scandal by Madonna King on ABC radio this morning. He kept rabbiting on about "presumption of innocence." At no time did he say that he was sure Thompson was innocent. He obviously knows the truth.


----------



## Happy (24 August 2011)

Heard that should he go Labor will resign from Speaker of the House position forcing Liberals to pick up the tab and nubers will add up again.

Sneaky but don't expect anything else from politicians, just too concerned about the trough, nothing else matters.


----------



## awg (24 August 2011)

Happy said:


> Heard that should he go Labor will resign from Speaker of the House position forcing Liberals to pick up the tab and nubers will add up again.
> 
> Sneaky but don't expect anything else from politicians, just too concerned about the trough, nothing else matters.




Would that work?

If Libs didnt, then a non-functional parliament may lead to an election?

I can only presume that Labor is just trying to hang on as long as possible, could take 12 months or more for him to be charged and convicted, if thats what happens.

The "truth" would be ugly as sin anyways I reckon.

You would presume those size prostitute bills would be catering for not just one guy?
Surely not? 

You can imagine Labor hard men have told him that if he walks or talks, then they would recall the $100k loan he apparently needed to avoid bankruptcy.

It makes me feel a bit ill to think that there appears to be enough damning evidence, with more to come, in all probability, the guy is lying thru his teeth, those in the know are aware. 

Good job. Well Done. Outstanding work from our leaders.

Well I suppose it could be classified as a Health Service


----------



## Happy (24 August 2011)

awg said:


> You would presume those size prostitute bills would be catering for not just one guy?
> Surely not?




Interesting that reporters did not find prostitutes yet to say one way or the other.




awg said:


> Well I suppose it could be classified as a Health Service




Come to think about it, all he needs to do now is get doctors certificate that suffers depression and it will be not crime but medical condition and will be different matter as in case of stealing Liberal Member


----------



## noco (24 August 2011)

With reluctance, the HSU have done the right thing in handing over all details to the police. If Labor and Thomson are telling the truth, they have nothing to fear.

If they won't make  statements, then they have plenty hide.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...son-to-go-public/story-e6freonf-1226121445804


----------



## noco (24 August 2011)

It would appear from this link, this whole affair will be dragged out for a long time by The Green/Labor socialist left government just to hold on to government. 



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...finished-hes-not/story-e6frgd0x-1226120770104


----------



## builder2818 (24 August 2011)

noco said:


> It would appear from this link, this whole affair will be dragged out for a long time by The Green/Labor socialist left government just to hold on to government.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...finished-hes-not/story-e6frgd0x-1226120770104




That's right.....by the time something happens in relation to this matter, we'll be heading back to the polls anyway and have this carbon tax already in place and that ranga will have ruined this country even further before the Libs get to take over.


----------



## drsmith (24 August 2011)

awg said:


> Would that work?
> 
> If Libs didnt, then a non-functional parliament may lead to an election?



Labor would need to convince a Coalition or non-Labor alligned independent to be speaker.

I can't imagine a Coalition member doing it (tantamount to treason against the party). The other two options are Bob Katter and Tony Crook (WA Nationals).


----------



## Julia (24 August 2011)

Whilst it's encouraging to know the Union is doing what it should, isn't the government justified in asserting that it has remained pretty well silent about the charges on Mary Jo Fisher?  

Obviously, the opposition are going to grab at the chance via Mr Thomson, to bring down the government, but isn't it fair to say they are being pretty hypocritical in their professed outrage here?

And before someone brands me as a Labor supporter, no of course I'm not, but I'm just trying to apply a little objectivity to this soap opera.

I also have to feel for Mr Thomson's wife.  It must be quite hideous for her.


----------



## DB008 (24 August 2011)

Muppets


http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9868#.TlTinvTduO0.email


----------



## moXJO (24 August 2011)

Julia said:


> but isn't it fair to say they are being pretty hypocritical in their professed outrage here?
> .




Yes it is, but at this stage I don't care. I would rather an election then to suffer any more damage to business from this current crop of idiots. While I doubt it will come to an election just yet, it's still nice to dream.
Nice to see Libs giving it their all to throw this lot out.


----------



## noco (24 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Whilst it's encouraging to know the Union is doing what it should, isn't the government justified in asserting that it has remained pretty well silent about the charges on Mary Jo Fisher?
> 
> Obviously, the opposition are going to grab at the chance via Mr Thomson, to bring down the government, but isn't it fair to say they are being pretty hypocritical in their professed outrage here?
> 
> ...




Julia, one can hardly compare the two cases as similar. Far from it. Mary Jo Fisher is up for shop lifting less than $100 and I believe an assualt charge, whereas Thompson may have misused over $100,000 of HSU funds and used the HSU credit card for prostitution which is a moral disorder to say the least. 

It is also possible Mary Jo Fisher may have been suffering from some mental disorder in which case she should not really hold public office.

I just can't see how you can connect one with the other.


----------



## Julia (24 August 2011)

Of course they're different.

But the *principle* cannot be concerned with degrees of wrongdoing.
Further, the claim that Ms Fisher may have had a mental health problem at the time could quite possibly also be claimed by Mr Thomson for all we know.
Maybe he (if charged) may claim a mental illness of addiction to sex which was beyond his control.
He wouldn't be the first to do so.

If anything, at this stage, when no charges have actually been laid against Mr Thomson, and charges have been laid against Ms Fisher, and if the opposition are morally entitled to be acting with such outrage as they are against Mr Thomson, can't you see the point that the government is quite correctly claiming that they have not made any such song and dance about Ms Fisher, and therefore it's 100% obvious that the opposition's outrage is based on pure political opportunism in the face of the numbers in the house of Reps.

I don't at all blame them for doing what they're doing, and I hope it bears fruit.
But I simply think the government has a rational point when they say they have refrained from comment about Ms Fisher.

I also have some doubts about Mr Abbott's new stand about not granting a pair.
This could come back to bite him and signals a new political low imo.


----------



## sails (24 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Whilst it's encouraging to know the Union is doing what it should, isn't the government justified in asserting that it has remained pretty well silent about the charges on Mary Jo Fisher?
> 
> Obviously, the opposition are going to grab at the chance via Mr Thomson, to bring down the government, but isn't it fair to say they are being pretty hypocritical in their professed outrage here?
> 
> ...





I do feel for Mr Thomson's wife - it must be terrible for her.  I understand she is seven months pregnant with their second child.  

I think the difference between Mary Jo Fisher and Thomson is that there doesn't appear to be any cover-up with Mary Jo, she has apparently already been charged and plans to contest the charges in court.  It appears the allegations are for a one off offence rather than the allegations that may have spanned a few years with Mr Thomson.  

Here is an article from a few weeks ago on Mary Jo Fisher:
http://www.news.com.au/national/lib...plifting-assault/story-e6frfkvr-1226100027412


----------



## DB008 (24 August 2011)

sails said:


> I think the difference between Mary Jo Fisher and Thomson is that there doesn't appear to be any cover-up with Mary Jo, she has apparently already been charged and plans to contest the charges in court.  It appears the allegations are for a one off offence rather than the allegations that may have spanned a few years with Mr Thomson.




I agree Sails. Old mate Thomson has been doing this for a number of years, whereas Fisher was a 1 off act. Doesn't make it right, but there is a difference in my eyes.


----------



## banco (24 August 2011)

Apparently their fall back plan is that he resigns from the party but stays on as an independent supporting labor.  Even if he's charged they should be able to string it out until the next election.  

As for his poor pregnant wife I don't feel sorry for her.  The HSU is a notoriously dysfunctional union (sociopath would not be too strong a word for many of the people that have held high level positions in that union).  If anyone cares to look there has been quite a few Federal Court cases relating to the shenanigans in that union.   

Being that the wife is a labor insider I find it hard to believe she didn't know she was marrying a union thug.


----------



## todster (25 August 2011)

Why not call the thread RELIEF we might be able to replace one set of clowns with our own


----------



## sails (25 August 2011)

Interesting article from the SMH by Paul Sheehan who has been speaking with a former chief of detectives:



> "Crimes have been committed that can bring down the Gillard government, and they are dumb crimes. As a former NSW chief of detectives told me: ''We are ultimately dealing with the crimes of a fool, whomever that fool may be, who has left a *documented trail like a bleeding elephant in a snowfield*.''"




Read more: *Crimes of a fool set to finish off Gillard*


----------



## waimate01 (25 August 2011)

Happy said:


> Interesting that reporters did not find prostitutes yet to say one way or the other.




Too honourable.  Nice juxtaposition.


----------



## noco (25 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Of course they're different.
> 
> But the *principle* cannot be concerned with degrees of wrongdoing.
> Further, the claim that Ms Fisher may have had a mental health problem at the time could quite possibly also be claimed by Mr Thomson for all we know.
> ...




Julia, you appear to have fallen for the Labor Party HOLLIER THAN THOU enigma and this what they want the naive to believe. 

Mary Jo Fisher is a Liberal senator and if by chance she were sentenced for wrong doing and resigned from parliament, South Australia must replace her with another Liberal senator............No election required to replace a senator............So the Labor Party has nothing to gain by making a big deal about her, so they adopt this HOOLIER THAN THOU ATTITUDE  to belittle the Liberal Party.

Thomson had repeated his misappropriation of monies on several occassions......... He is not mental, just stupid.


----------



## noco (25 August 2011)

How much longer can this idiot get away with his lies. The Escort agencies are now involved.

How long will it take for the police make a charge? They should have all the evidence they need to wrap it up within a couple of weeks.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...mp-craig-thomson/story-fn59niix-1226121605788


----------



## noco (25 August 2011)

And the Labor parrots have all been primed how to answer questions on the galah.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...or-besieged-mate/story-fn59niix-1226121564871


----------



## Calliope (25 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> Labor would need to convince a Coalition or non-Labor alligned independent to be speaker.
> 
> I can't imagine a Coalition member doing it (tantamount to treason against the party). The other two options are Bob Katter and Tony Crook (WA Nationals).




What about slippery Peter Slipper, my local  Liberal member. On the basis of selling his soul for a fast buck I would put him up there with Thomson.


----------



## awg (25 August 2011)

noco said:


> Thomson had repeated his misappropriation of monies on several occassions......... He is not mental, just stupid.




Mental & stupid possibly?

Who in their right mind would use the Corporate Credit card to rack up mega ho bills?

Maybe I am confused, but I dont think he has denied the cash advances.

I would have thought payment for such services would be more prudently made in cash, but I did read a media article that stated higher class outcall agencies required proof of ID, so maybe payment via card is part of that requirement?

You would have to suspect their is some lasses out there who could cast some light on these matters, I wonder if any reporters are seeking them


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2011)

Calliope said:


> What about slippery Peter Slipper, my local  Liberal member. On the basis of selling his soul for a fast buck I would put him up there with Thomson.



You better start drafting the letter of discontent to your local Liberal member, just in case.


----------



## breaker (25 August 2011)

todster said:


> Why not call the thread RELIEF we might be able to replace one set of clowns with our own




may be hand relief, Craig shoulda tried that


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2011)

breaker said:


> may be hand relief, Craig shoulda tried that



Personal appendages aside, he should have at least been more careful about the slots that credit card went into.


----------



## sails (25 August 2011)

sails said:


> Interesting article from the SMH by Paul Sheehan who has been speaking with a former chief of detectives:
> 
> Read more: *Crimes of a fool set to finish off Gillard*





And from the same article, the former chief of detectives doesn't believe the rubbish that the police had to wait for a formal complaint from the union:



> ''Utter garbage,'' said the former detective. *''Police do not need to have a complaint from a victim in order to investigate a crime.''*


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2011)

Oh crap!

Where to from here ?


----------



## sails (25 August 2011)

From Bill Leak...


----------



## Julia (25 August 2011)

On Radio National this morning there was a report about one of today's papers carrying a cartoon showing a prostitute being asked to pick out her client from a line-up of naked blokes.  Anyone come across this?


----------



## Calliope (26 August 2011)

The Austin Powers Defence.

Andrew Clennell and Steve Lewis in The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday:

BESIEGED Labor MP Craig Thomson allegedly tried to cover up payments for prostitutes by reversing charges, then processing them on a different credit card.



> From Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery:
> 
> VANESSA: Let's gather your personal effects, shall we?
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...aby-its-not-mine/story-fn72xczz-1226122387307


----------



## Calliope (26 August 2011)

Gillard's gang say that Thomson should be given the *
"presumption of innocence"*






*The Faces of Innocence*


----------



## banco (26 August 2011)

Julia said:


> On Radio National this morning there was a report about one of today's papers carrying a cartoon showing a prostitute being asked to pick out her client from a line-up of naked blokes.  Anyone come across this?




You can bet that the media is trying to find an "escort" who has serviced Thomson to interview on 60 minutes or something.


----------



## Calliope (26 August 2011)

banco said:


> You can bet that the media is trying to find an "escort" who has serviced Thomson to interview on 60 minutes or something.




Wayne Swan: They used to say that Labor couldn't organise a root in a brothel.  

Julia Gillard:   Those were the days!


----------



## moXJO (26 August 2011)

> VICTORIAN police are investigating the placing of a shovel outside the Melbourne home of Health Services Union national secretary Kathy Jackson.




Oh goody we have now sunk back to the bad old days of Union thugs making home delivery threats.Good on Kathy Jackson for making a stand. Crazy how low this country has been taken. We had a very bad reputation in the 80's-90's regarding this sort of thing


----------



## noco (26 August 2011)

So JU-LIAR knew all about this fraudster 2 yeras ago and has tried desperatly to keep it under wraps. 

She has to go and the sooner the better.




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ir-in-early-2009/story-e6freon6-1226122406799


----------



## Julia (26 August 2011)

The following is a pretty rational comment following the above Courier Mail article:



> Both sides are as bad as each other Posted at 1:40 AM Today
> 
> "Mr Williams told the Prime Minister's most trusted adviser that he was legally unable to provide any information about his investigation." If this is true, then Hubbard wasn't told anything. It's also been revealed that the Victorian Liberal Government paid the legal fees of a Victorian Liberal Party politician. It's also been revealed that a Liberal Senator (Mary Jo Fisher) was arrested for stealing AND assault. This occurred in December, 2010, and Tony Abbott was advised soon after but did NOT reveal this information until 7 or 8 months AFTER. And then you have Tony Abbott, who in July, 2010, it was revealed by The Courier-Mail that he has promised to "fix" Michael Johnson's legal problems. Sounds like both parties have their hands full with leaders covering for their politicians.




Noco, simple question to you:  do you honestly believe that if the positions of of Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott were reversed, and the Libs held the minority government, and a Liberal member replicated Craig Thomson's situation, that Mr Abbott would behave any differently from the way Ms Gillard is behaving at present?

If you do think he would handle things differently, could you outline what you believe would be happening?

(And no, I am not in the slightest defending the government, just vainly trying for a bit of objectivity.)


----------



## noco (26 August 2011)

Julia said:


> The following is a pretty rational comment following the above Courier Mail article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Julia, you would have to ask Tony Abbott that question. I'm sorry, I don't know what he would do in a simliar situation.

I could pass an opinion and it may be completly different as to how Abbott would handle it.

The chances of the same senario happening would be, in my opinion, very remote.


----------



## todster (27 August 2011)

noco said:


> Julia, you would have to ask Tony Abbott that question. I'm sorry, I don't know what he would do in a simliar situation.
> 
> I could pass an opinion and it may be completly different as to how Abbott would handle it.
> 
> The chances of the same senario happening would be, in my opinion, very remote.




Noco will have no answers until Andrew Bolt releases his latest blog,but then again there could be an old Alan Jones podcast there somewhere he could reference.
I can read the paper and know what noco has typed before i log on.
Bless his blue heart


----------



## noco (27 August 2011)

todster said:


> Noco will have no answers until Andrew Bolt releases his latest blog,but then again there could be an old Alan Jones podcast there somewhere he could reference.
> I can read the paper and know what noco has typed before i log on.
> Bless his blue heart




Thanks for that sermon todster, perhaps you should tell me what JU-LIAR should do..........just keep telling the voters lies, lies and more lies just to hold on to power.

OMG, you are brainwashed arn't you?


----------



## Calliope (27 August 2011)

Julia said:


> (And no, I am not in the slightest defending the government, just vainly trying for a bit of objectivity.)




That's what Gillard says too, but everyone knows she is a liar. It's hard to be objective about a bottom feeder like Thomson. Even his own union has asked the police to investigate his alleged criminal activities.


----------



## Julia (27 August 2011)

Calliope said:


> Even his own union has asked the police to investigate his alleged criminal activities.



Only, it seems, when they were forced to via the outrage of their members.
From a couple of articles in today's The Australian, there is also considerable intra-union enmity and factions playing out.


----------



## noco (27 August 2011)

Isn't this typical of these union heavy weight thugs intimidating Kathy Jackson.

I say "good on her for standing up to these t*^d>"........They as low as a rattle snakes belly.

BTW todster, this did not come from Bolta.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...g-thomson-affair/story-e6freooo-1226123180706


----------



## joea (27 August 2011)

noco said:


> Isn't this typical of these union heavy weight thugs intimidating Kathy Jackson.
> 
> I say "good on her for standing up to these t*^d>"........They as low as a rattle snakes belly.
> 
> ...




good one noco
joea


----------



## Miss Hale (29 August 2011)

noco said:


> Julia, you would have to ask Tony Abbott that question. I'm sorry, I don't know what he would do in a simliar situation.
> 
> I could pass an opinion and it may be completly different as to how Abbott would handle it.
> 
> The chances of the same senario happening would be, in my opinion, very remote.




It couldn't happen at all because Liberal polititions are not former union bosses like so many of the Labor ones are so the same scenario would not occur.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 August 2011)

I really cannot see what all the fuss is about. 

Union leaders have been rooting on the public purse in this country for at least a century, if not more.

Leave him alone. Let parliament sort it out.

gg


----------



## Julia (29 August 2011)

Miss Hale said:


> It couldn't happen at all because Liberal polititions are not former union bosses like so many of the Labor ones are so the same scenario would not occur.



The principle of the issue does not relate solely to the involvement of the union.
Plenty of other ways to steal or otherwise be dishonest.
Are you actually saying it's impossible that any Coalition member would ever be (a) dishonest, and/or (b) as unbelievably stupid as Mr Thomson has demonstrated himself to be?

I could possibly agree with the latter, but hardly the former.


----------



## sptrawler (29 August 2011)

The unions are very similar to sporting groups and other member based institutions, they rely on trust and common belief.
This in itself lends itself to abuse, there are very few that do not at some stage fall victim to misplaced trust and loyalty. Predatory people have a field day taking advantage of loose checking and blind faith of the membership.
Fortunatelly it is examples like these that make people more vigilant and unfortunatelly less trusting.
Also has lead to a huge loss of union membership, like the workers of today say "when Liberal is in, at least you know who the enemy is".


----------



## noco (30 August 2011)

And the plot thickens on the embattled Thomson.

What else don't we know at this stage.

Maybe it is just the tip of the iceberg.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...om-laborrand-hsu/story-e6freon6-1226124870701


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 August 2011)

Not allowing union leaders to live high off their union members contributions is un-Australian. 

And not allowing union leaders to have a root at a brothel in between $300 meals and $500 bottles of wine is a capitalist plot to deny workers the right to have spent their union dues as they see fit.

This thread is degenerating in to an anti-union rant.

Leave the unions out of this.

Leave Craig Thomson to the parliament.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (30 August 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Not allowing union leaders to live high off their union members contributions is un-Australian.
> 
> And not allowing union leaders to have a root at a brothel in between $300 meals and $500 bottles of wine is a capitalist plot to deny workers the right to have spent their union dues as they see fit.
> 
> ...




Right on gg, if members are stupid enough to pay their dues without questioning where it is going, they deserve everything they get.
That also supports the theory that voters get the government they deserve.
Let the parliament sort out Craig Thomson and all you HSU members keep paying his bills, at least that will help the rest of us.LOL


----------



## dutchie (31 August 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Not allowing union leaders to live high off their union members contributions is un-Australian.
> 
> And not allowing union leaders to have a root at a brothel in between $300 meals and $500 bottles of wine is a capitalist plot to deny workers the right to have spent their union dues as they see fit.
> 
> ...




When you put it like that I almost feel sorry for them.


----------



## Knobby22 (31 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The unions are very similar to sporting groups and other member based institutions, they rely on trust and common belief.
> This in itself lends itself to abuse, there are very few that do not at some stage fall victim to misplaced trust and loyalty. Predatory people have a field day taking advantage of loose checking and blind faith of the membership.
> Fortunatelly it is examples like these that make people more vigilant and unfortunatelly less trusting.
> ".




That is an incisive comment sptrawler.
Labor has had many more cases than the Libs due to this type of thinking. Someone is caught doing something wrong and the people involved say he is part of my tribe and it would be traitorous to expose him/her. This lets the (often) psychopath continue. 

The Libs on the other hand, if they sense weakness or faults will attack them, usually well before they get a chance to enter parliament. This is one of their great strengths.


----------



## Miss Hale (31 August 2011)

Julia said:


> The principle of the issue does not relate solely to the involvement of the union.
> Plenty of other ways to steal or otherwise be dishonest.
> Are you actually saying it's impossible that any Coalition member would ever be (a) dishonest, and/or (b) as unbelievably stupid as Mr Thomson has demonstrated himself to be?
> 
> I could possibly agree with the latter, but hardly the former.




No I'm not saying that, I think it's quite possible for a coalition member to be dishonest and/or stupid, but the basis of this case involves the rorting of a union, an organisation intrinsicly linked with Labor and Labor only so it couldn't happen to a Coalition polititian.


----------



## Calliope (31 August 2011)

Miss Hale said:


> No I'm not saying that, I think it's quite possible for a coalition member to be dishonest and/or stupid, but the basis of this case involves the rorting of a union, an organisation intrinsicly linked with Labor and Labor only so it couldn't happen to a Coalition polititian.




That's right. I can understand Mr Thomson thinking he has been badly done by. He has only been following the time honored practice for union leaders to use their members' funds for their own nefarious activities. 

It is not surprising that all the ex-union officials who now run the Labor government want to protect him. By their standards he has done nothing wrong.


----------



## noco (31 August 2011)

Miss Hale said:


> No I'm not saying that, I think it's quite possible for a coalition member to be dishonest and/or stupid, but the basis of this case involves the rorting of a union, an organisation intrinsicly linked with Labor and Labor only so it couldn't happen to a Coalition polititian.




Yes Miss Hale, I agree completly. It is not relevant to the coalition in any way and should have not be related.


----------



## noco (2 September 2011)

How will the unions or the Labor Party bail Thomson out of the tax debt which is looming over the blokes head?

The plot thickens.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...rmail/comments/thomson_taxes_labor_even_more/


----------



## sptrawler (2 September 2011)

The government pulled off a stroke of genius with the high court judgement on the refugees.
It got Thomson off the front page of the newspapers. LOL LOL


----------



## joea (3 September 2011)

In the Australian.
"Broke MP Craig Thompson planning $100,000 home extension."

It is interesting that Tim Lee, general manager of Fair Work Australia, has ben promoted to Commissioner. This is the guy who has been investigating claims against Thompson for 2 years.

Meanwhile Kathy Jackson who blew the whistle has been admitted to hospital- possibly for stress- a week after she received the threat.

Well this sums up how this government works.
I think over the weeekend a new pol will be taken and I am looking forward to the result.
joea


----------



## sails (3 September 2011)

And yet another twist to this saga in a further seeming desperate to prevent the course of justice.  Surely Mr Lee should have to step down from his new job until investigations have been completed?



> Opposition workplace relations spokesman Eric Abetz said in Mr Lee's new role as Fair Work commissioner - a quasi-judicial role - he would be shielded from any questions and scrutiny in Senate estimates about the investigation.
> 
> 'One would also have to question just why Labor has, by appointing Mr Lee to the position of FWA commissioner, effectively shut down any possibility of him being questioned further at Senate estimates about the Craig Thomson inquiry.




Read full story from The Age by Ben Schneiders and Royce Millar:

*Former head of Thomson inquiry to avoid scrutiny*


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 September 2011)

Perhaps my previous post above, needs amendment in light of the revelations about Craig Thomson's $100,000 home extensions, a man saved from bankruptcy by his party................




joea said:


> In the Australian.
> "Broke MP Craig Thompson planning $100,000 home extension."
> 
> It is interesting that Tim Lee, general manager of Fair Work Australia, has ben promoted to Commissioner. This is the guy who has been investigating claims against Thompson for 2 years.
> ...




........................


Not allowing union leaders to live high off their union members contributions is un-Australian. 

And not allowing union leaders to have a root at a brothel in between $300 meals and $500 bottles of wine is a capitalist plot to deny workers the right to have spent their union dues as they see fit.

And not allowing former union members who become ALP members of parliament to commence house extensions of $100,000 subsequent to being recently bailed out of threatened bankruptcy by the ALP, is also un-Australian.

This thread is degenerating in to an anti-union rant.

Leave the unions out of this.

Leave Craig Thomson to the parliament.

gg


----------



## sails (3 September 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> ...Leave Craig Thomson to the parliament.
> 
> gg




sorry, GG. Not while Thomson receives his salary (or some of it) from taxpayer's funds.  If he has fraudulently taken public money from the unions, then he's not fit to be representing his electorate, imo.


----------



## Julia (3 September 2011)

Sails, I've been assuming gg's remarks are very much tongue in cheek.
At least I certainly hope so.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 September 2011)

Julia said:


> Sails, I've been assuming gg's remarks are very much tongue in cheek.
> At least I certainly hope so.




Moi?

There must be an election on the way, everyone is so anxious. A picture closer to what I really looked like when I posted the above.







gg


----------



## sails (3 September 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Moi?
> 
> There must be an election on the way, everyone is so anxious. A picture closer to what I really looked like when I posted the above.
> 
> ...





My apologies, gg...

I should have known better. .. 

Hopefully there is an election on the way because a change of leadership back to Rudd isn't going to fix anything, imo.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 September 2011)

sails said:


> My apologies, gg...
> 
> I should have known better. ..
> 
> Hopefully there is an election on the way because a change of leadership back to Rudd isn't going to fix anything, imo.




I agree sails.

It is not a good look for the country, the Indons, Chinese and others in the region must be wetting themselves laughing at the state of our nation, a quarry-ship with a crew of fools grappling with the helm.

gg


----------



## noco (3 September 2011)

Can somebody tell me what the hell is going on with Thomson and the Labor Party

I thought he was broke.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...0-home-extension/story-e6freooo-1226128649261


----------



## sptrawler (3 September 2011)

noco said:


> Can somebody tell me what the hell is going on with Thomson and the Labor Party
> 
> I thought he was broke.
> 
> ...




They say you are never broke while you have members.LOL


----------



## Calliope (8 September 2011)

> Federal Labor MP Craig Thomson will not be subject to a criminal investigation by New South Wales Police.









I guess this is the same Police Force that was formed by the previous Labor government.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-08/nsw-police-won27t-investigate-thomson/2875982


----------



## nulla nulla (8 September 2011)

Must be prime minister material, nothing sticks.


----------



## Julia (8 September 2011)

The opposition is vowing to keep up the pressure on Craig Thomson.  What can they actually do now that NSW Police has categorically said there is no basis for a criminal investigation, and the expectation is that Victoria Police will find likewise?

Doesn't the opposition run the risk here of looking hysterical rather than reasonable?

A further point:  Mr Thomson's wife is apparently due to give birth soon.  The opposition have said they will not grant the government a pair if the birth occurs during the carbon tax debate, thus preventing Mr Thomson from being present at the birth of his child.

Is this reasonable?

The opposition has suggested that if the government chooses to schedule the carbon tax debate during the anticipated delivery time for Thomson Jnr, then that's their problem.  Sounds sensible, or does it?

PS  It's just possible the opposition might be doing Mrs Thomson a favour by preventing her husband attending the birth.  Given his apparent interests of the bordello variety, she may well prefer alternative support at such a time.


----------



## Calliope (8 September 2011)

Julia said:


> A further point:  Mr Thomson's wife is apparently due to give birth soon.  The opposition have said they will not grant the government a pair if the birth occurs during the carbon tax debate, thus preventing Mr Thomson from being present at the birth of his child.
> 
> Is this reasonable?




 The opposition did not say this.



> *An earlier AAP version of this story reported Mr Abbott as saying there was no way a pair would be granted to Mr Thomson. AAP has now amended that as Mr Abbott did not make a specific declaration about Mr Thomson. Mr Abbott's office has issued the statement above to clarify the Opposition Leader's position.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbo...gives-birth-20110908-1jz5l.html#ixzz1XMaHRLdE


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 September 2011)

It never ceases to amaze me how right wing rags such as the Sydney Morning Herald pursue unions, unionists and workers in their hegemonist goals.

The latest rubbish to appear in that organ is an allegation that Craig Thomson and a Mr.Williamson when they were officers of that union, received American Express credit cards which were used inter alia for school fees.

The cards were supplied to the officers of the union it is alleged, by the publisher of the union's newsletter a Mr. Gilleland, who was paid it is alleged more than ten times the going rate for publishing the newsletter.


http://www.smh.com.au/national/thomson-new-credit-card-claims-20110908-1jzz2.html



> THE Labor MP Craig Thomson and the union leader Michael Williamson, who is on the ALP national executive, allegedly received secret commissions from a major supplier to their union.
> The two men, both senior figures in the Health Services Union at the time, were provided with American Express cards by John Gilleland, who runs a graphic design business, a Herald investigation has found.
> The credit cards were issued in the names of Mr Thomson and Mr Williamson but were attached to Mr Gilleland's account.
> 
> ...


----------



## dutchie (9 September 2011)

Some of your best work GG

Good luck with the job application.


----------



## Calliope (9 September 2011)

Careful GG. Some gullible people don't recognise irony.


----------



## noco (9 September 2011)

The rorting that is going on with Thomson, Williamson and Bill Ludwig with union members fees is the tip of the iceberg and should warrant a Royal Commision investigation.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...mments/no_thomson_is_not_waving_but_drowning/


----------



## sptrawler (9 September 2011)

noco said:


> The rorting that is going on with Thomson, Williamson and Bill Ludwig with union members fees is the tip of the iceberg and should warrant a Royal Commision investigation.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...mments/no_thomson_is_not_waving_but_drowning/




A Royal Commision of all major unions, would really put a cat among the pidgeons.


----------



## noco (10 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> A Royal Commision of all major unions, would really put a cat among the pidgeons.




Yes, and I don't think this Green/Labor socialist left wing government would be too happy about it either.


----------



## sptrawler (20 September 2011)

WOW obviuosly old habits die hard.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/credit-card-abuse-rampant-audits-show-20110919-1khzd.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 February 2012)

Craig Thomson has a vote in the tussle between Rudd and Gillard, but then he may have to face the results of an ongoing NSW Police Investigation.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ded-in-hsu-probe/story-e6freuy9-1226280558194



> A search warrant (was executed) on a premises on Palm Beach as part of the investigation," a police spokeswoman to AAP.
> 
> But she would not confirm media reports the raid was at the house of printer John Gilleland, 65, and his wife, Carron.
> 
> ...




It is difficult being a Federal member.



gg


----------



## joea (24 February 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is difficult being a Federal member.
> gg




Its difficult if you want to shaft the taxpayer and the union you represent.
All the people ask is that the MP represent them with honesty and integrity.
After all the voter displayed their character to put this fellow into parliament.
So its not difficult at all. Craig just wanted more than he was entitled too.
"What goes around comes around."
joea


----------



## Julia (24 February 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Craig Thomson has a vote in the tussle between Rudd and Gillard, but then he may have to face the results of an ongoing NSW Police Investigation.
> 
> It is difficult being a Federal member.
> gg



I'm hoping your last sentence was tongue in cheek.
The account of this incident which I read today (can't now remember where) also said that Mr Gilleland and his brother have previously been in trouble for counterfeiting currency.


----------



## sails (10 May 2012)

There is a possibility that Mr Thomson may  have broken parliamentary rules by failing to declare the assistance in the MPs pecuniary interest register.

From the Daily Telegraph: ALP paid Craig Thomson's Fair Work inquiry legal bills


And this raises some serious questions, imo.  It seems just a tad too convenient that the three years of the FWA investigation now means that Thomson can't be charged under Electoral rules - that has to be done within three years- bold is mine:



> Yesterday, even though the FWA report concluded Thomson had spent up to $250,000 of union funds in undeclared campaign spending, the AEC said that, as the FWA report had taken three years to appear, *the statute of limitations had expired.
> *
> The core revelations were placed in the public domain three years ago. The charade rolls on and the desperate buy more time.




Full article from the Canberra Times: Thomson charade still going as the players await a final curtain


----------



## Julia (10 May 2012)

Mr Thomson and Ms Gillard may delude themselves that they are getting away with manipulating time lines and systems.

What they are failing to take into account is the electorate's utter revulsion at the amorality and hypocrisy displayed by everyone who is party to protecting both Thomson and Slipper.

That includes the two Independents, Oakeshott and Windsor.


----------



## drsmith (10 May 2012)

A much as Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor wish to continue to prop up the political sky that is now cracking above them, they are now faced with the growing realisation that it will fall in on them and their legacy.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opi...k-but-can-he-wind-it-back-20120509-1yd81.html

All that and the NSW ALP was covering his legal costs till his suspension from the party.


----------



## sails (11 May 2012)

From the Courier Mail:
Craig Thomson's $200,000 legal bill paid so Labor could cling to power, NSW Labor party secretary Sam Dastyari claims 

and



> HEALTH Services Union national secretary Kathy Jackson will urge the union's executive to sue Craig Thomson for the $500,000 he allegedly exploited from members' funds to pay for prostitutes, high living and his own election campaign.
> 
> Ms Jackson and her lawyers are preparing legal documents to take civil action against the Labor MP turned independent, who already faces huge legal bills no longer footed by the NSW ALP.




From the Australian: Push to sue Craig Thomson for $500k


----------



## moXJO (11 May 2012)

Thomson wants out but labor has him by the short and curlies. If he quits then those legal bills will fall on his head and labor will make further moves to destroy him. Not much of a choice but to toe the line now. Oakshott and Windsor however are nothing but opportunistic scum doing anything to keep their head above water. They have the choice for doing the right thing, nice one boys.


----------



## dutchie (11 May 2012)

I am in no doubt that both Craig Thomson and Michael Williamson are criminals and should spend time in jail.

There are, however, two other criminals by the name of Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor. These two are *moral* criminals and should *not* go to jail. They should instead hang their heads in shame,for betraying their electorates, for the rest of their lives and not be allowed to participate in any future elections.


----------



## joea (12 May 2012)

And it goes on and on!

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...with-prostitutes/story-e6freooo-1226353524203

joea


----------



## dutchie (12 May 2012)

After seeing Thomson with Laurie Oakes this morning -
Craig Thomson = Sleazy weasel


----------



## drsmith (12 May 2012)

dutchie said:


> After seeing Thomson with Laurie Oakes this morning -
> Craig Thomson = Sleazy weasel




He's hit the panic button.

The end-game is now under way.


----------



## tech/a (12 May 2012)

This guy is an insult to human intelligence!


----------



## Calliope (12 May 2012)

tech/a said:


> This guy is an insult to human intelligence!




He is a perfect fit as a Labor MP. His union pedigree is immaculate.


----------



## drsmith (12 May 2012)

Poor Craig is trying to claim there's no proof who was making the phone calls from his phone.

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=749459&vId=3247608&cId=Top Stories&play=true

Upon seeing that, the rats on Labor's sinking ship will be running around like headless chooks and a couple of independents will be choking on their morning tea.

One has to wonder whether Craig Thompson will even make it into the House on Monday week.


----------



## MrBurns (12 May 2012)

You have to have a thick hide to go on national TV and lie through your teeth in the face of report like that.


----------



## rumpole (12 May 2012)

The very least Labor can do is dis-endorse him for the next election

"It wasn't me" - the dog ate my homework. What rubbish.

He better come up with a very convincing explanation in Parliament, but if he doesn't what can be done ? No one can force him to resign unless he is convicted of a criminal offence.


----------



## drsmith (12 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> The very least Labor can do is dis-endorse him for the next election



Labor will be over the moon if they can keep his rotting political corpse upright until the next election, assuming it's not early.


----------



## Miss Hale (12 May 2012)

I heard a sound bite re this on the radio this morning.  Basically he was saying anyone could have stolen his CC and driver's licence details.  I don't buy it.  Even if it were true, doesn't show the HSU in any better light does it? (Lack of security, dishonest individuals who would steal things, threaten people and set them up with prostitutes  ). As I have said before,  well and truly over it all


----------



## bellenuit (12 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> He better come up with a very convincing explanation in Parliament, but if he doesn't what can be done ? No one can force him to resign unless he is convicted of a criminal offence.




Isn't being caught lying to parliament some sort of serious (parliamentary) offence that can result in expulsion?  I don't know what the penalties are, but it is not taken lightly. Note: I did say being caught lying as opposed to just lying, which is par for the course.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 May 2012)

This will, as do all sexual scandals, get very messy.

If he is innocent, who in the HSU was getting a free legover at the expense of the poorly paid Hospital and Ambulance Services workers who were unfortunate enough to be members of this union?

Is this happening in other Unions?

gg


----------



## rumpole (12 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This will, as do all sexual scandals, get very messy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Probably. It's probably happening with shareholder's funds too..


----------



## banco (12 May 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I heard a sound bite re this on the radio this morning.  Basically he was saying anyone could have stolen his CC and driver's licence details.  I don't buy it.  Even if it were true, doesn't show the HSU in any better light does it? (Lack of security, dishonest individuals who would steal things, threaten people and set them up with prostitutes  ). As I have said before,  well and truly over it all




As laurie oakes pointed out they would have had to have stolen his mobile as well.  He must be some sort of sociopath to think he can run with this bull**** story.


----------



## rumpole (12 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This will, as do all sexual scandals, get very messy.
> 
> If he is innocent, who in the HSU was getting a free legover at the expense of the poorly paid Hospital and Ambulance Services workers who were unfortunate enough to be members of this union?
> 
> ...




Either the guy is innocent or he is incredibly stupid.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-12/thomsons-set-up-claim-an-alibi-abbott/4007520?WT.svl=news0

*"A Fair Work Australia investigation found Mr Thomson's credit card and driver's licence details were on escort agency receipts, but Mr Thomson says someone could have been impersonating him when making the transactions."*

Can you imagine anyone that stupid to leave an audit trail sticking out like dog's balls straight to an escort agency ?

From his wiki

*"Thomson was educated at the University of New South Wales, where he obtained a Bachelor of Commerce. Thomson later completed a law degree at University of Technology, Sydney. He also attended a trade union education programme at Harvard University.[4]"*

As a lawyer and Bachelor of Commerce he should have known the consequences of leaving personal details that could be traced back to him.

There may be something fishy going on here involving other parties that bears investigation.


----------



## MrBurns (12 May 2012)

> Thomson's set-up claim an alibi: Abbott
> 
> Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has taken aim at Craig Thomson, saying an interview in which the suspended Labor MP claims he is the victim of a set-up is simply an alibi for the Prime Minister to retain his vote.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-12/thomsons-set-up-claim-an-alibi-abbott/4007520

Abbotts right you know, I was wondering how a man can bare face lie in a situation like that where he's obviously guilty.

The reason is of course that he has to for the survival of the Gillard Govt, so no matter how far fetched his excuses are it has the effect of stalling his departure and saving Gillard........and thats all that matters.


----------



## noco (12 May 2012)

banco said:


> As laurie oakes pointed out they would have had to have stolen his mobile as well.  He must be some sort of sociopath to think he can run with this bull**** story.




I believe there are records held at a motel where  phone calls were made to escort sevices.
Did Thomson leave his room unlocked to allow someone else to go in and make those calls?
Just maybe, Gillard is working in the back ground trying drum up an alibi for him. Given her record of recent events, she would be cunning enough to try it.


----------



## joea (12 May 2012)

The plot will thicken in this fiasco.
The CBA are saying what about the $20 million we loaned you if there are talks about administration.
A debt free property was mortgaged for $4.5 million.
etc. etc.
The Craig Thompson fiasco is only the tip of the iceberg of the corruption in the HSU, and Kathy Jackson has opened up a "can of worms". The problem is the "can" is pretty big.
3500 union members have pulled out, and you can only imagine how many will not renew.
And "Little Billy Shorten" was using this union as his foundation to push him towards being PM of Australia.
Sorry Billy I do not think so. I think Billy might be caught with his fingers in the cookie jar.
The Labor government have been chasing the documents the QC got his hands on.
God only knows what that is all about.
joea


----------



## drsmith (12 May 2012)

TIn terms of supporting the government, Tony Windsor is on his last line of defence,

http://www.tonywindsor.com.au/releases/120511a.pdf 

That was last night, before Craig Thomson's interview today with Laurie Oakes.


----------



## joea (12 May 2012)

In the weekend AFR an article states,"HSU rorts go back to the 60s".
This is not about Craig Thompson at all.
Its about those who want to push the limit.
I almost believe it has turned into a contest.
joea


----------



## awg (12 May 2012)

Not being a constitutional lawyer, but does the parliament have power to act against a person telling what can be proven to be bare-faced lies in parliament ?

I think they may have powers, that exist, other than criminal or civil action matters, to deal internally by procedure with certain behaviours.

Thompson may need to consider that (before his parliamentary address)...every time he opens his mouth, he digs a deeper hole.

Reckon he will end up in jail (eventually)

its a bit puzzling why there hasnt been an outburst of " I was Craig Thompsons mole" stories...be worth a pretty penny on 60 Minutes


----------



## McLovin (12 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-12/thomsons-set-up-claim-an-alibi-abbott/4007520
> 
> Abbotts right you know, I was wondering how a man can bare face lie in a situation like that where he's obviously guilty.




Of course he is right. But it doesn't really matter, he's been neither charged nor found guilty.

At least I'll be able to tell the grandkids that I lived through the worst government in Australia's history.


----------



## MrBurns (12 May 2012)

People I know are now saying they want Gillard to stay and take the full humiliation of the election rather than be replaced.....I bet she jumps first.


----------



## moXJO (12 May 2012)

I bet the other unions are watching with keen interest there is a lot of shifty bastards I know of  first hand. Labor seems to be having a hard time with the instant information era. Back in the day they could hide their rorts or stuff up without much consequence. Now however everything comes to light. Too many rats in the ranks, they need a clean out.


----------



## Julia (12 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Either the guy is innocent or he is incredibly stupid.
> 
> Can you imagine anyone that stupid to leave an audit trail sticking out like dog's balls straight to an escort agency ?



No.  But I guess this gross abuse of funds had been going on for so long and he'd apparently got away with it, he became over-confident and felt untouchable.

Is it possible that he can insist on his current claims, i.e. that someone else incurred all the charges, made all the phone calls, and - unbelievable though it is - it cannot be proven otherwise, and he is therefore able to continue in the parliament?

If so, isn't the stench surrounding him, including that enveloping the government and the Independents, going to cause their standing to deteriorate even further on the basis of their knowing support of a corrupt individual?


----------



## MrBurns (12 May 2012)

Julia said:


> No.  But I guess this gross abuse of funds had been going on for so long and he'd apparently got away with it, he became over-confident and felt untouchable.
> 
> Is it possible that he can insist on his current claims, i.e. that someone else incurred all the charges, made all the phone calls, and - unbelievable though it is - it cannot be proven otherwise, and he is therefore able to continue in the parliament?
> 
> If so, isn't the stench surrounding him, including that enveloping the government and the Independents, going to cause their standing to deteriorate even further on the basis of their knowing support of a corrupt individual?




I agree he thought no one would ever check, they're been getting away with this for years.


----------



## rumpole (13 May 2012)

Julia said:


> If so, isn't the stench surrounding him, including that enveloping the government and the Independents, going to cause their standing to deteriorate even further on the basis of their knowing support of a corrupt individual?




True IF he is actually corrupt (only allegations made so far), and if the support extends to people saying he did nothing wrong. The Parliament may well censure him, but they can't throw him out unless he is found guilty of something, and they can't stop him voting. If Labor votes in support of a censure motion, that would indicate they don't support him.


----------



## MrBurns (13 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> True IF he is actually corrupt (only allegations made so far), .




As Abbott said these aren't allegations these are FINDINGS.
A big difference.


----------



## Julia (13 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> True IF he is actually corrupt (only allegations made so far), and if the support extends to people saying he did nothing wrong. The Parliament may well censure him, but they can't throw him out unless he is found guilty of something, and they can't stop him voting. If Labor votes in support of a censure motion, that would indicate they don't support him.




Do you believe there is any chance Thomson did not in fact do what is alleged?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Do you believe there is any chance Thomson did not in fact do what is alleged?




There is always a chance. How small or how big a chance is the question.

It would be fortuitous if there was video evidence, which I doubt.

gg


----------



## drsmith (13 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is always a chance. How small or how big a chance is the question.



Having finally reached the point where he has to try and explain himself, perhaps the next part of the strategy is to try and create a sufficient atmosphere of doubt in the independents.



> Thomson will draw heavily on the line of defence he filed with Fair Work Australia in his explanation to Parliament on Monday week. Expect a mixture of outright denials and argued technicalities. In essence: it wasn't me, or it wasn't my responsibility.
> 
> His goal is simple: to cast enough doubt to ensure his fellow MPs conclude they cannot judge these matters with any certainty, and must leave any action to the courts. It may be enough, given the strong interest - both in personal and policy terms - that the crossbenchers have in letting this government run full-term. Thomson might still face some form of censure or suspension, but they are deeply reluctant for Parliament to play judge and jury.
> 
> It was not lost on several MPs this week that the Senate bid farewell to Nick Sherry, the Labor minister who rebuilt his life and political career after a suicide attempt in 1997 in the face of claims - of which he was later cleared - of misused travel entitlements. For some MPs, even the seed of doubt is enough to make them think twice. That's all Craig Thomson needs.



http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/an-incredible-tale-20120512-1yjnm.html


----------



## rumpole (13 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Do you believe there is any chance Thomson did not in fact do what is alleged?




I'm 99% sure that he did what is alleged. I believe he hasn't denied using union funds to finance his 2007 election campaign, which is bad enough. Someone may have set him up over the escort agency. The only reason I think that is because he would have to be pretty stupid to leave that sort of trail, but I wouldn't rule out gross stupidity in any politician.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (13 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Do you believe there is any chance Thomson did not in fact do what is alleged?




No chance.  If his version is correct, then he would have been on the lookout from the very start for these anomalies.  Don't forget, he saw the incoming credit card statements and signed off on them.

With a law degree, and with the mission as HSU Secretary of getting financial rigour into the place, it would have been a very easy matter to get the police involved in the fraudulent activities of his enemies, so as to smooth his entry into Parliament from the HSU


----------



## MrBurns (13 May 2012)

Why isnt the media getting the truth from the brothel ?

Wouldnt be too hard for them and their cheque book, though mght depend who their other clients are.


----------



## Julia (13 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> No chance.  If his version is correct, then he would have been on the lookout from the very start for these anomalies.  Don't forget, he saw the incoming credit card statements and signed off on them.



Ah, excellent point.  I suppose he'll claim he was customarily careless about checking his credit card statements.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (13 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Why isnt the media getting the truth from the brothel ?




I agree.  They shouldn't be going off half-cocked!

But didn't one of those brothels produce a photocopy of his driver's licence (taken when he produced his credit card)?

The real 'smoking gun', so to speak, would be if one of the young ladies was observant enough to notice something on Thomson's $@# that only a proctologist (or similar) would pick up on.

Would be very hard to erect a defence to that one!!


----------



## MrBurns (13 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> I agree.  They shouldn't be going off half-cocked!
> 
> !!




I'm surprised 60 Minutes hasn't got to them by now.

That story would rate it's head off, perhaps legal complcations ???


----------



## StumpyPhantom (13 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I'm surprised 60 Minutes hasn't got to them by now.
> 
> That story would rate it's head off, perhaps legal complcations ???




No doubt the Channel 9 lawyers would be vetting possible stories.  But I take the practical view that Thomson started defamation action a few years ago (against Fairfax, I think) when this sleaze started oozing out.  Then, with truth being a proper defence, certain evidence was filed, prompting Thomson to pull out.  He was left with a huge legal bill which the ALP paid for to avoid him going bankrupt (sound familiar?).

So they can be as defamatory as they like now, be prepared to defend the truth of their claim (this sounds easy) and know that Thomson hasn't got funds now he's an 'independent'.

So far as criminal proceedings are concerned, what proceedings?  So they should go for their lives.


----------



## sails (13 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> ...So they can be as defamatory as they like now, be prepared to defend the truth of their claim (this sounds easy) and know that Thomson hasn't got funds now he's an 'independent'....





Are you sure about that, Stumpy?  I would have thought alp would continue to pay his legal bills provided he doesn't resign and votes with them?


----------



## drsmith (13 May 2012)

After this weekend's interview with Laurie Oakes, the one thing we can be sure of is the more Craig Thomson opens his mouth, the more he and Labor will be in the poo.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (13 May 2012)

sails said:


> Are you sure about that, Stumpy?  I would have thought alp would continue to pay his legal bills provided he doesn't resign and votes with them?




So far as funding is concerned, given that Gillard has recently been confronted with the fact that NSW ALP stumped up $100k in legal bills, it would be highly embarrassing for them to do more now that he's an independent, especially given that defamation is a private legal action.

More importantly, defamation is a legal tool that can be 'reverse engineered' by defendants who have a reason to get on their soapbox.  That British holocaust denier David Irving used to 'defame the memory of the dead' just so he could air his controversial views about Hitler in court.  Free publicity he couldn't get elsewhere.

So Channel 9 can have a red hot go if they believe in the truth of their story, because truth will be a complete defence to defamation (and I assume that's why Thomson discontinued his previous defamation case).  And we all seem to know where the truth lies?


----------



## BradK (14 May 2012)

OK, at the risk of coming across as a bleeding heart, I am concerned about Craig Thompsons mental health after that interview. I am in good company too. Introducing, the thoughts of Mr Mark Latham... 

http://www.boss.afr.com.au/p/opinion/human_frailty_made_manifest_bD4EoJBBEqV7ii1dtDudPN

"... After the Oakes interview, they should have little doubt of Thomson’s delusional state of mind. No matter the political outcomes at stake, such a person is in need of pastoral support and consideration. We all know of instances when the pressures of parliamentary life have been too severe for individuals to handle.

Abbott’s first concern should be a matter of common humanity: giving Thomson and the people close to him time and space to sort out his thinking. I say this, not as an apologist for the unions or the Australian Labor Party, rather, the time has come to see beyond the politics of the HSU controversy and think about the man himself..."


----------



## bellenuit (14 May 2012)

BradK said:


> OK, at the risk of coming across as a bleeding heart, I am concerned about Craig Thompsons mental health after that interview. I am in good company too. Introducing, the thoughts of Mr Mark Latham...
> 
> http://www.boss.afr.com.au/p/opinion/human_frailty_made_manifest_bD4EoJBBEqV7ii1dtDudPN
> 
> ...




Normally I would agree with you, but if the pressure causes Thomson to have a mental breakdown and thus cannot continue to support Gillard, then in this case it will be worth it. Another 18 months of Gillard will cause more trauma for ordinary Australians, who are just trying to get on with life, than Thompson will ever suffer. 

If he offers his resignation from parliament, which would be the right thing to do anyway, then by all means lay off him and let the law take its course.


----------



## Julia (14 May 2012)

Good Lord, that from Mark Latham of all people!
Totally disagree with his premise that Thomson is deserving of our 'pastoral support'.

He is simply desperate and trying stupidly desperate measures in the hope of holding on.
No one comes remotely close to believing his fantastic defence.


----------



## BradK (14 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Good Lord, that from Mark Latham of all people!
> Totally disagree with his premise that Thomson is deserving of our 'pastoral support'.
> 
> He is simply desperate and trying stupidly desperate measures in the hope of holding on.
> No one comes remotely close to believing his fantastic defence.




Tim Costello just now on QandA has said similar things re: pastoral support. Look, there is a massive context here which has significant public impacts (ie. the continuing Labor Govt), but even watching the interview with Laurie Oakes on Saturday morning, I could not help feel that here was a guy under immense pressure and we are probably watching the beginnings of whoknowswhat? 

I agree, his defence is ridiculous at best. Its just so far beyond the pale. Which, to some extent is my point... 

My two cents


----------



## sails (14 May 2012)

BradK said:


> Tim Costello just now on QandA has said similar things re: pastoral support. Look, there is a massive context here which has significant public impacts (ie. the continuing Labor Govt), but even watching the interview with Laurie Oakes on Saturday morning, I could not help feel that here was a guy under immense pressure and we are probably watching the beginnings of whoknowswhat?
> 
> I agree, his defence is ridiculous at best. Its just so far beyond the pale. Which, to some extent is my point...
> 
> My two cents




Brad, I don't have too much sympathy for people who brings things on themselves and then come up with unbelievable stories in attempt to excuse themselves. What about the HSU members who trustingly paid their dues?  

Sure, anyone struggling with life needs support, however, this doesn't mean we should go soft on crime either, imo.  

It seems extraordinary to me that he is not permitted to stand aside.  But labor need him, so it appears they will keep him in the hot seat, seemingly regardless of his own needs, and possibly in return for saving him from bankruptcy - at least while they need him.


----------



## dutchie (14 May 2012)

BradK said:


> OK, at the risk of coming across as a bleeding heart, I am concerned about Craig Thompsons mental health after that interview. I am in good company too. Introducing, the thoughts of Mr Mark Latham...
> 
> http://www.boss.afr.com.au/p/opinion/human_frailty_made_manifest_bD4EoJBBEqV7ii1dtDudPN
> 
> ...




Not aimed at you Bradk - just what you have quoted-

Re: Mark Lathams comments - Absolute crap - Thomson calculatedly stole money from hard working people - he knew what he was doing - he still does - he got caught and now he is trying to weasel out of it.

He and Williamson are low-lifes.

He should be in jail - end of story!

Its the union members whom deserve pastoral support - they have seen their hard earned money wasted on these two degenerates.


----------



## banco (14 May 2012)

It's obvious he's feeling the pressure.  I doubt his recent stay in hospital was entirely related to his physical heatlh.


----------



## Calliope (15 May 2012)

Supporters of Thomson (and Slipper) keep spouting nonsense about their entitlement to "the presumption of innocence."  This of course is all bulls*it.



> IT is always dangerous when legal doctrines are taken hostage by politicians and sharpened into rhetorical weapons. A great deal of nonsense has been talked about the presumption of innocence in the Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper cases.
> 
> By invoking this principle, Julia Gillard has tried to stifle public discussion and parliamentary scrutiny of events that are a matter of legitimate public interest.
> 
> ...



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...edo-is-laughable/story-e6frgd0x-1226355234732


----------



## awg (15 May 2012)

Dunno if any of this has been covered, and I dont know if that Fair Work report is available, or whether his mobile phone records are accessed.

His call pattern would be the most defining evidence. One would think.


As I can understand, what they allegedly did is use union funds to pay inflated contracts to suppliers, who then issued Credit Cards, in the Unions name, but given to them (Thompson, Jackson etc).

A smart lawyer bastard like Thompson would have though that spending on that card was not technically accountable or illegal or a breach of Union regs, due to the way it was setup

( I think they will get done for giving the inflated contracts if the suppliers rolls over)

The above practices are not unknown in several industries I have been associated with, including Construction.

So presumably Thompson used this for prostitutes..it is my understanding that the majority of brothels will not send an outcall worker without identification and credit card details, for security purposes, which is the only reason I can imagine why he was that stupid.

However, there would have been nothing stop him getting the girls mobile phone number, then arranging a later meeting...for which he would pay cash!...after getting an advance from the ATM.

An accquantance had a 2nd job driving girls to the job, he would wait, and take them back, and I am sure he told me that the girl checks the dude matches the ID, (once again for security reasons)...and he wasnt working at some posh joint that charged $500 either.

Now Craig...run that story of yours past me again

I very much doubt he can last much longer...even SAS soldier has a breaking point, and Thompson appears flawed. 

Opposition will go for jugular

Now where the hell are them Ho's...surely they wer'nt being paid for nothing by nobody...let them speak I say


----------



## drsmith (15 May 2012)

Fearing it's long term survival, the union movement is now distancing itself from Labor's position on Craig Thomson.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-says-paul-howes/story-fn59niix-1226356162085


----------



## Julia (15 May 2012)

dutchie said:


> Not aimed at you Bradk - just what you have quoted-
> 
> Re: Mark Lathams comments - Absolute crap - Thomson calculatedly stole money from hard working people - he knew what he was doing - he still does - he got caught and now he is trying to weasel out of it.
> 
> ...



Completely agree.



awg said:


> Now where the hell are them Ho's...surely they wer'nt being paid for nothing by nobody...let them speak I say



Yes, is there any reason why the girls cannot individually identify him as the person who, um, used their services?


----------



## StumpyPhantom (15 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Yes, is there any reason why the girls cannot individually identify him as the person who, um, used their services?




You would have thought there was a big cheque from one of the women's mags or tabloid TV waiting for them and their story?

Maybe this whole story is so stinky that they don't want their reputations sullied by being connected to this.

That says alot about the government, I reckon.


----------



## sails (15 May 2012)

Julia said:


> ...Yes, is there any reason why the girls cannot individually identify him as the person who, um, used their services?




I have heard it suggested that they may have other high profile customers who pay well.  Perhaps they have their reasons...


----------



## MrBurns (15 May 2012)

sails said:


> I have heard it suggested that they may have other high profile customers who pay well.  Perhaps they have their reasons...




That would be the case, there's no doubt the cheque books would have been out trying.


----------



## Ruby (15 May 2012)

BradK said:


> "... After the Oakes interview, they should have little doubt of Thomson’s delusional state of mind. No matter the political outcomes at stake, such a person is in need of pastoral support and consideration. We all know of instances when the pressures of parliamentary life have been too severe for individuals to handle.
> 
> Abbott’s first concern should be a matter of common humanity: giving Thomson and the people close to him time and space to sort out his thinking. I say this, not as an apologist for the unions or the Australian Labor Party, rather, the time has come to see beyond the politics of the HSU controversy and think about the man himself..."




What an absolute crock!!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2012)

Ruby said:


> What an absolute crock!!




I would agree, many thousands of  people have been hurt by the shenanigans in this Union, and by extension this Government which condoned it by inaction over Thomson in the face of a decision by Fair Work Australia. 

gg


----------



## BradK (16 May 2012)

I am not at all condoning Thompson's behaviour - just suggesting that this appears to have turned a corner that goes beyond the legal, political and criminal dimensions. 

And that the pressure must be incredibly intense for him, and everyone is deserving of some pastoral support. No?


----------



## Calliope (16 May 2012)

BradK said:


> I am not at all condoning Thompson's behaviour - just suggesting that this appears to have turned a corner that goes beyond the legal, political and criminal dimensions.
> 
> And that the pressure must be incredibly intense for him, and everyone is deserving of some pastoral support. No?




No! Not until he has confessed his sins, repaid his victims and done jail time.


----------



## sails (16 May 2012)

BradK said:


> I am not at all condoning Thompson's behaviour - just suggesting that this appears to have turned a corner that goes beyond the legal, political and criminal dimensions.
> 
> And that the pressure must be incredibly intense for him, and everyone is deserving of some pastoral support. No?





Brad, I have no problem with anyone having pastoral care provided that doesn't in any way excuse the severity of their actions.

"Do the crime, do the time" is appropriate.  Not presuming Thomson as guilty, but if he is found to be so, then he needs to accept whatever discipline comes his way.


----------



## Calliope (16 May 2012)

These three conspirators are guilty of propping up a corrupt government to save their own necks.


----------



## MrBurns (16 May 2012)

BradK said:


> I am not at all condoning Thompson's behaviour - just suggesting that this appears to have turned a corner that goes beyond the legal, political and criminal dimensions.
> And that the pressure must be incredibly intense for him, and everyone is deserving of some pastoral support. No?




If the pressure is so great he should resign and disappear somewhere.

You shouldn't be fooled into sympathy for someone who professes innocence in the face of such findings, feel sorry for the union members taken for fools over a number of years.


----------



## Julia (16 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> If the pressure is so great he should resign and disappear somewhere.
> 
> You shouldn't be fooled into sympathy for someone who professes innocence in the face of such findings, feel sorry for the union members taken for fools over a number of years.



Exactly.  Think about the low paid person who empties bedpans and whose union dues have been buying prostitutes for Thomson.  What an insult to those people.


----------



## Miss Hale (16 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Exactly.  Think about the low paid person who empties bedpans and whose union dues have been buying prostitutes for Thomson.  What an insult to those people.




I agree, there are many people being screwed here (if you will pardon the crude analogy).  Whole thing makes me feel sick


----------



## Ruby (16 May 2012)

BradK said:


> I am not at all condoning Thompson's behaviour - just suggesting that this appears to have turned a corner that goes beyond the legal, political and criminal dimensions.




Brad, you are being naive in the extreme!   You *are *making excuses for him.   This man's greed, arrogance and complete disregard for other people led him to (knowingly) do what he has done.  You seem to be suggesting he is not responsible for his actions. Spare me!  He deserves no sympathy. 



BradK said:


> And that the pressure must be incredibly intense for him, and everyone is deserving of some pastoral support. No?




Well diddums!   Poor little Craig!   He created the pressure and can diffuse the situation any time he wants to by taking responsibility for his actions.   We all have to face up to what we do.  He can get pastoral care if he wants it.  There are plenty of counsellors / psychologists / priests around.


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

Ruby said:


> Well diddums!   Poor little Craig!   He created the pressure and can diffuse the situation any time he wants to by taking responsibility for his actions.   We all have to face up to what we do.  He can get pastoral care if he wants it.  There are plenty of counsellors / psychologists / priests around.




Let's just see what judicial proceedings come up with before we all rush to ultimate judgement.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Let's just see what judicial proceedings come up with before we all rush to ultimate judgement.




What judicial proceedings?  If FWA or HSU go to the Federal Court, it will be to attempt to recoup their money spent by him.  If Thomson really wanted to defend himself, he should have done so at any time in the last 4 years.

Instead, he contemptuously maintained his innocence and now claims he was set up.  Overnight, the VIC police invited him to provide a statement to them about this and he declined.  So he's going to name them in Parliament but keep the cops at bay.

He's been running rings around the Labor Party and the electorate all this time.  It took a party elder (Faulkner) to imply his disgust - as opposed to Gillard's stated, but empty, disgust - by directing that the ALP reveal how much it has handed over to Thomson's lawyers to prop him up all this time.

It will be one of the great ironies to see that Thomson squandered half a million on himself, and the 'disgusted' Labor Party then squandered almost as much again on him flailing himself over his innocence.  It won't just be the HSU membership leaving in droves.

I'll bet NSW ALP members will be building the Abbott-proof fence from the outside!


----------



## MrBurns (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Let's just see what judicial proceedings come up with before we all rush to ultimate judgement.




These aren't accusations rumpy there are *findings,* a big difference.


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

I wonder if a business exec did the same thing as Thomson, would he be subject to the same vitriol from the posters here ?

I doubt it.


----------



## tech/a (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I wonder if a business exec did the same thing as Thomson, would he be subject to the same vitriol from the posters here ?
> 
> I doubt it.




The business man would be using HIS money.
Thomsons using other peoples money---those who have entrusted him with it.

*BIG DIFFERENCE*


----------



## McLovin (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I wonder if a business exec did the same thing as Thomson, would he be subject to the same vitriol from the posters here ?
> 
> I doubt it.




An executive works for a private company and does not hold public office. Not quite the same.


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

tech/a said:


> The business man would be using HIS money.




Not if he's using his company supplied credit card . There is no difference to a union supplied credit card, they both use 'shareholders' money.


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> An executive works for a private company and does not hold public office. Not quite the same.




Oh really ? Plenty of ex businessmen go into Parliament. If he previously used a company credit card for escorts isn't that the same deal as Thomson ?


----------



## Klogg (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I wonder if a business exec did the same thing as Thomson, would he be subject to the same vitriol from the posters here ?
> 
> I doubt it.




If a business exec used shareholder funds to pay for hookers, I'm fairly sure he would have lost his job BEFORE the criminal investigation even came close - and they'd assist the police investigation too.


----------



## McLovin (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Oh really ? Plenty of ex businessmen go into Parliament.
> If he previously used a company credit card for escorts isn't that the same deal as Thomson ?




Yes. To be quite honest, I couldn't care less about the escorts. There wouldn't be a large company in this country that doesn't use them. It's the embezzlement of funds from the HSU that gets me. And in that sense, I could care less whether Thomson was embezzling money from BHP or the HSU.

Of course, we wouldn't be having this discussion if he was in the private sector because he would have been sacked in disgrace years ago. But that goes to the culture of some parts of the union movement, which is probably for another thread.


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

> Of course, we wouldn't be having this discussion if he was in the private sector because he would have been sacked in disgrace years ago.




I'm not sure about that. If he was making money for the business, or had some control over the company secretary, then I think a blind eye may have been turned , even just to avoid embarrassment for the company, in which case it's no different to the Thomson case. I think there is probably a lot that could be turned up about the conduct of businessmen that is no different to the Thomson case.


----------



## McLovin (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I'm not sure about that. If he was making money for the business, or had some control over the company secretary, then I think a blind eye may have been turned , even just to avoid embarrassment for the company, in which case it's no different to the Thomson case. I think there is probably a lot that could be turned up about the conduct of businessmen that is no different to the Thomson case.




Without evidence, that's a pretty hollow statement full of assumptions.

Australia has been ranked the least corrupt country in the G20 and 8th in the World. Hardly, the sort of environment that allows executives to steal, just because they're doing a good job.

http://www.news.com.au/business/australia-least-corrupt-country-in-g20/story-e6frfm1i-1226211210544


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> Without evidence, that's a pretty hollow statement full of assumptions.
> 
> Australia has been ranked the least corrupt country in the G20 and 8th in the World. Hardly, the sort of environment that allows executives to steal, just because they're doing a good job.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/business/australia-least-corrupt-country-in-g20/story-e6frfm1i-1226211210544




It depends on your definition of "theft".

Is travelling business class on airlines and staying at high priced hotels on shareholders funds when cheaper ones would suffice classified as "theft" ?

Private jets vs commercial airlines ?

Chauffer driven cars vs public transport ?

Execs have a lot of perks that they don't really need, and the shareholders are paying for them.


----------



## awg (17 May 2012)

Remember Richard Pratt..lol

Maybe no ho will go on TV cause of tax, as I suspect they avoid paying the proper amount.

Also, I think the expensive ones are often respectable Uni students and mums and the exposure would be pretty harsh, unless your ID was protected, which would lower the worth, or you got offered a too big to refuse payout.

It would be not unknown for shareholder funds to be expended on gentlemans entertainment, under certain circumstances and jurisdictions, that may be acceptable.

He hasnt enacted that defence though, nor can he imo, expending Union Members funds in that way cannot be justified


----------



## McLovin (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> It depends on your definition of "theft".
> 
> Is travelling business class on airlines and staying at high priced hotels on shareholders funds when cheaper ones would suffice classified as "theft" ?
> 
> ...




I take it you've never had a job that required a lot of travel.


----------



## MrBurns (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I wonder if a business exec did the same thing as Thomson, would he be subject to the same vitriol from the posters here ?
> 
> I doubt it.




Of course not, Thompson is being paid by the taxpayer and is protecting a corrupt Govt, that singles him out for special treatment.


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> I take it you've never had a job that required a lot of travel.




Not in a private jet, no


----------



## McLovin (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Not in a private jet, no




Your faulty assumption is that using private jets doesn't save the company money.


----------



## BradK (17 May 2012)

Ruby said:


> Brad, you are being naive in the extreme!   You *are *making excuses for him.   This man's greed, arrogance and complete disregard for other people led him to (knowingly) do what he has done.  You seem to be suggesting he is not responsible for his actions. Spare me!  He deserves no sympathy.
> 
> Well diddums!   Poor little Craig!   He created the pressure and can diffuse the situation any time he wants to by taking responsibility for his actions.   We all have to face up to what we do.  He can get pastoral care if he wants it.  There are plenty of counsellors / psychologists / priests around.




I don't even know how to respond to that misreading... Think I might leave it because you are clearly not capable of ... well, its difficult to say what you are not capable of.


----------



## Julia (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> It depends on your definition of "theft".
> 
> Is travelling business class on airlines and staying at high priced hotels on shareholders funds when cheaper ones would suffice classified as "theft" ?
> 
> ...



Well, they can simply cease to become shareholders if they don't approve of executive conditions.
If you seriously expect a CEO to travel to the other side of the world in economy, you're well and truly out of touch with business.

Ditto any expectation that they should get off a long flight and haul their bag on the train to the city.

Just silly.

And if you could explain why you are so defending the corrupt Craig Thomson, implicitly approving of him ripping off the low paid members of the HSU, that would be welcome.


----------



## Julia (17 May 2012)

awg said:


> Maybe no ho will go on TV cause of tax, as I suspect they avoid paying the proper amount.
> 
> Also, I think the expensive ones are often respectable Uni students and mums and the exposure would be pretty harsh, unless your ID was protected, which would lower the worth, or you got offered a too big to refuse payout.



It's a simple matter for the face not to be shown and the voice altered.


----------



## McLovin (17 May 2012)

Julia said:


> If you seriously expect a CEO to travel to the other side of the world in economy, you're well and truly out of touch with business.




Or anyone for that matter. I use to travel a lot for work, and its amazing how many people seem to equate getting on a plane to being on holiday, which business travel is far from. Getting off a 15-20 hour flight and being expected to front up for a full day in the office is exhausting, even when flying business class. There's also an assumption that while on the flight you will be working. Part of the reason I left it all was I was over the long hours.

We stayed in Hilton equivalent hotels, which is hardly glamorous. Obviously more senior directors/VP's/Presidents would often stay at Westins etc but why shouldn't they? For longer stays, or in cities we often travelled to we were given serviced apartments. It was really a place to crash at night though, I certainly wasn't in the day spa getting a foot massage.

Re private jets, most of them are very basic (some of the small ones only have an "emergency" toilet, which is just a regular seat that you lift up in the main cabin) and very cramped. Everyone I know who flew on them (I never did myself), would take a commercial business class seat over a private jet any day of the week. Their main advantage is the time saved, especially when flying to obscure points on the map.


----------



## awg (17 May 2012)

Julia said:


> It's a simple matter for the face not to be shown and the voice altered.




cr@p entertainment value though, and much less credible + less pay.


Federal Police wanting to ask questions later maybe ?..heat..

Strength in numbers would be best perhaps...maybe they are discreet...I dunno

Fact: someone was paying big $$ for services...can you imagine Tony Abbotts joy if the exact nature of the services is revealed. I believe many would be wishing for this.

On the other hand, whats Julia G gonna possibly say if it turns out to be particularly egregious


----------



## ColB (17 May 2012)

*Originally Posted by Ruby*

Brad, you are being naive in the extreme! You are making excuses for him. This man's greed, arrogance and complete disregard for other people led him to (knowingly) do what he has done. You seem to be suggesting he is not responsible for his actions. Spare me! He deserves no sympathy. 

Well diddums! Poor little Craig! He created the pressure and can diffuse the situation any time he wants to by taking responsibility for his actions. We all have to face up to what we do. He can get pastoral care if he wants it. There are plenty of counsellors / psychologists / priests around.




BradK said:


> I don't even know how to respond to that misreading... Think I might leave it because you are clearly not capable of ... well, its difficult to say what you are not capable of.




Well Brad, you clearly must be having a bad day!!

I don't think Ruby needs my support, but she articulately sums up her feelings about the Thomson case and makes very valid points about your judgement of this dishonourable character.

That you offer no constructive criticism of her comments other than attempts to belittle her indicates that you should perhaps have a good look at yourself.


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Well, they can simply cease to become shareholders if they don't approve of executive conditions.
> If you seriously expect a CEO to travel to the other side of the world in economy, you're well and truly out of touch with business.
> 
> Ditto any expectation that they should get off a long flight and haul their bag on the train to the city.
> ...




I'm not defending Thomson at all. I hope he gets what he deserves after a proper trial where he has a chance to defend himself. I'm just saying that if he happened to be an ex businessman who pinched shareholder funds in similar manner, all this palaver would probably be dismissed by the people here as "just business".


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

> Well, they can simply cease to become shareholders if they don't approve of executive conditions.




A rather arrogant attitude don't you think ? If you don't like it get lost. Shareholders have no right to question executive payments or benefits ?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I'm not defending Thomson at all. I hope he gets what he deserves after a proper trial where he has a chance to defend himself. *I'm just saying that if he happened to be an ex businessman who pinched shareholder funds in similar manner, all this palaver would probably be dismissed by the people here as "just business"*.




rumpole, what evidence have you got for this rather insulting statement? To say that members of ASF would dismiss the misappropriation of shareholders funds as "just business" makes me wonder about you mate. 

gg


----------



## joea (17 May 2012)

I think this whole "bloody" fiasco is nothing but a joke.
One MP facing alleged fraud charges has shown the whole legal system is nothing but a stuff up.
If this was anybody off the street, they would be jail.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/legal-hitch-could-hit-thomson-case-20120517-1yt1q.html

joea


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I wonder if a business exec did the same thing as Thomson, would he be subject to the same vitriol from the posters here ?
> 
> I doubt it.




Hi Rumpole,

I've been in business a while. During the decades its been my experience that companies are careful who they give a blank cheque in the form of a corporate credit card to. There's only been one instance where something along the lines of what you describe has occurred. When the credit card statement came in, the offending executive was hauled in front of the CEO and the outcome was that he left the company for "health reasons". (And he was made to re-imburse the company for a non-authorised expense). Needless to say what he had done became fairly common knowledge, because executives gossip like old women and the executive subsequently retired. 

As for business travel... McLovin is dead right. It's not a holiday. And travelling business class means you may actually get some decent sleep on a long flight and be able to function when you get to your destination. 

Cheers
Sir O


----------



## MrBurns (17 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> rumpole, what evidence have you got for this rather insulting statement? To say that members of ASF would dismiss the misappropriation of shareholders funds as "just business" makes me wonder about you mate.
> gg




On the strength of that statement alone the chaps have decided to gift you a 5 year membership at the Melbourne Club, just turn sharp left after the entrance and knock 3 times on the blue door and say Burnsie sent you.
Look forward to buying you a drink ole' chum.


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> rumpole, what evidence have you got for this rather insulting statement? To say that members of ASF would dismiss the misappropriation of shareholders funds as "just business" makes me wonder about you mate.
> 
> gg




Misappropriation can be a matter of opinion can't it ?

eg if an exec spent the companies money on hookers to entertain a client and perhaps get his business, is that a legitimate expense ?

How do you reckon the shareholders would feel about it if the deal was done ?

If Thomson did not use the hookers himself, but tried to sweeten a private hospital CEO to give his members a better deal, is that legitimate ?

If his members did get a better deal from this, would they argue ?

Things are not always black and white.


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> On the strength of that statement alone the chaps have decided to gift you a 5 year membership at the Melbourne Club, just turn sharp left after the entrance and knock 3 times on the blue door and say Burnsie sent you.
> Look forward to buying to a drink ole' chum.




Yer a real gent Burnsie, I'll pay for lunch . I'll lay on some nice girls for you too <nudge nudge>


----------



## MrBurns (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Misappropriation can be a matter of opinion can't it ?
> 
> eg if an exec spent the companies money on hookers to entertain a client and perhaps get his business, is that a legitimate expense ?
> 
> ...




Let's not get racist now Rumpy.

Fact is he has his snout in the public trough, had his snout in the Union members trough and the FINDINGS are that his main role in everything was as a rorter.
Damn the expense of a trial straight to the gallows I say.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 May 2012)

The FWA and Union Disease seems to have permeated this ASF thread, infecting you both, rumpole and Burnsie.

Live your life as you wish, but good governance is practised in private enterprise and in good unions for that matter.

What an utter shame that you would operate like this.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Yer a real gent Burnsie, I'll pay for lunch . I'll lay on some nice girls for you too <nudge nudge>




My appologies Rumpy I was referring to gg, but you can come along 



Garpal Gumnut said:


> The FWA and Union Disease seems to have permeated this ASF thread, infecting you both, rumpole and Burnsie.
> 
> Live your life as you wish, but good governance is practised in private enterprise and in good unions for that matter.
> 
> ...




I think you have me tagged incorrectly gg.


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The FWA and Union Disease seems to have permeated this ASF thread, infecting you both, rumpole and Burnsie.
> 
> Live your life as you wish, but good governance is practised in private enterprise and in good unions for that matter.
> 
> ...




Let's not get too sanctimonious, there are good and bad businesses, good and bad unions and many different shades in between. 

I can't see how you can look at Lehmann's, JP Morgan's and  the other businesses recently that have gone over the top in terms of gluttony and maladministration and say that no business execs ever rort their shareholders. Of course there are lots of well managed companies, but there are shysters as well. Let's not kid ourselves.


----------



## Ruby (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Let's just see what judicial proceedings come up with before we all rush to ultimate judgement.




We've hardly "rushed" to judgement.  This has been unfolding for years.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The FWA and Union Disease seems to have permeated this ASF thread, infecting you both, rumpole and Burnsie.
> 
> Live your life as you wish, but good governance is practised in private enterprise and in good unions for that matter.
> 
> ...






rumpole said:


> Let's not get too sanctimonious, there are good and bad businesses, good and bad unions and many different shades in between.
> 
> I can't see how you can look at Lehmann's, JP Morgan's and  the other businesses recently that have gone over the top in terms of gluttony and maladministration and say that no business execs ever rort their shareholders. Of course there are lots of well managed companies, but there are shysters as well. Let's not kid ourselves.




I do not think that anyone on ASF would rush to defend Lehmann Bros., JP Morgan or any of the others responsible for capital loss recently. My comments were directed against both you, Burnsie and rumpole in attempting to impugn the morals of ASF members. This is not an ABC forum and free kicks agains the non-left will be tackled as they occur.

You should apologise to ASF members for such insulting comments.

ASF members will continue to speak out against poor governance from the left ( unions ) and the right ( business ) without fear or favour.

gg


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

> ASF members will continue to speak out against poor governance from the left ( unions ) and the right ( business ) without fear or favour.




If you do that, you have my respect and apologies.


----------



## MrBurns (17 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> My comments were directed against both you, Burnsie and rumpole in attempting to impugn the morals of ASF members.
> gg




I think you've failed to read my recent posts in here, please point out where I have done such a thing.


----------



## rumpole (17 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I think you've failed to read my recent posts in here, please point out where I have done such a thing.




It's all my fault Burnsie, you are clean


----------



## MrBurns (17 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> It's all my fault Burnsie, you are clean




I have the utmost respect for both of you but my politics are closer to gg, I guess you now know how I felt on the ABC forums


----------



## BradK (17 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I have the utmost respect for both of you but my politics are closer to gg, I guess you now know how I felt on the ABC forums




And Mr Burns, do you, unlike Ruby think that Mr Thompson is entitled to some pastoral care? JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!


----------



## MrBurns (17 May 2012)

BradK said:


> And Mr Burns, do you, unlike Ruby think that Mr Thompson is entitled to some pastoral care? JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!




Of course he does, I believe they offer those services in prison.


----------



## Julia (17 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> rumpole, what evidence have you got for this rather insulting statement? To say that members of ASF would dismiss the misappropriation of shareholders funds as "just business" makes me wonder about you mate.
> gg



+1.



rumpole said:


> A rather arrogant attitude don't you think ? If you don't like it get lost. Shareholders have no right to question executive payments or benefits ?



Are you deliberately being obtuse in order to muddy the argument?   Shareholders routinely question anything about which they are at odds.  The members of the HSU have not had the same opportunity.



> If his members did get a better deal from this, would they argue ?
> 
> Things are not always black and white.



If you can explain how Thomson's use of prostitutes produced benefits for the members of the HSU, I'm sure we'd all welcome the enlightenment.  At this stage, such a suggestion seems desperate at best.




Garpal Gumnut said:


> The FWA and Union Disease seems to have permeated this ASF thread, infecting you both, rumpole and Burnsie.
> 
> Live your life as you wish, but good governance is practised in private enterprise and in good unions for that matter.
> 
> ...



+1.  Though I think you're perhaps wrongly attributing Rumpole-like views to Burnsie who has previously made pretty clear his disgust with the member for Dobell.




rumpole said:


> If you do that, you have my respect and apologies.



Read over various of the political threads over some years and you will see much objective criticism of all sides.
Do not assume that your own rigid political bias applies to the rest of us.


----------



## MrBurns (17 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Though I think you're perhaps wrongly attributing Rumpole-like views to Burnsie who has previously made pretty clear his disgust with the member for Dobell.




Thanks Julia, gg has misunderstood a previous post of mine but he should have known better considering my posts to date.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Thanks Julia, gg has misunderstood a previous post of mine but he should have known better considering my posts to date.




My apologies Burnsie,

No excuse for distressing you except read tailend of conversation.

Still no excuse.

My apologies.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (17 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> My apologies Burnsie,
> 
> No excuse for distressing you except read tailend of conversation.
> 
> ...




Accepted, your invitation to the Melbourne Club stlll stands.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Accepted, your invitation to the Melbourne Club stlll stands.




I did not realise you were a fellow member. 

gg


----------



## BradK (17 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Of course he does, I believe they offer those services in prison.




Hahahahaha ... is Ruby the prison chaplain?


----------



## rumpole (18 May 2012)

> Read over various of the political threads over some years and you will see much objective criticism of all sides.
> Do not assume that your own rigid political bias applies to the rest of us.




I don't have rigid political views Julia, I just try to see both sides.

If anyone here denies that some businesses use prostitutes as a business expense to entertain clients they have their heads in the sand. No one has answered whether they as shareholders would approve if it increased company profits. It's a simple question. Morals vs money, which side would you be on ? Or would a blind eye be turned ?


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I don't have rigid political views Julia, I just try to see both sides.




I never knew you were a comedian Rumpole. That statement had me laughing so hard I couldn't catch my breath for minutes. I think I actually turned blue. 



> If anyone here denies that some businesses use prostitutes as a business expense to entertain clients they have their heads in the sand. No one has answered whether they as shareholders would approve if it increased company profits. It's a simple question. Morals vs money, which side would you be on ? Or would a blind eye be turned ?




Whatever the morals of businessmen using prostitutes, if they do or not, there is a completely different ethic involved. A union official is akin to a public servant whereas in business there is a profit motive.

The rules (and moral imperatives) are indeed different.


----------



## rumpole (18 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> I never knew you were a comedian Rumpole. That statement had me laughing so hard I couldn't catch my breath for minutes. I think I actually turned blue.




It may interest you to know that had the Howard government invested a bit more in some infrastructure like power stations and the Murray Darling instead of blaming the States all the time, I would have voted for him in 2007. If MT was Lib leader I would vote for them now. Even though , or more likely because, he's not a true Liberal in that he is capable of showing some compassion and has a focus on big issues not petty politics.



> Whatever the morals of businessmen using prostitutes, if they do or not, there is a completely different ethic involved. A union official is akin to a public servant whereas in business there is a profit motive.
> 
> The rules (and moral imperatives) are indeed different.




I disagree. He is there to get a better deal for his members (shareholders). Why do think he should not use the same means to do that as business people ? (If that's what he did).

 I see that as a double standard, and really proves the point that I have been making and have been pilloried for in this forum. You justify businesses using shoddy tactics to get business, but union leaders have to be lilly-white.

Thanks for proving my point wayneL.


----------



## rumpole (18 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> rumpole, what evidence have you got for this rather insulting statement? To say that members of ASF would dismiss the misappropriation of shareholders funds as "just business" makes me wonder about you mate.
> 
> gg




See wayneL's post above. I take it you disassociate yourself from his view ? I may even ask for an apology but as I'm not a member of the Melbourne Club I probably won't get one


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> It may interest you to know that had the Howard government invested a bit more in some infrastructure like power stations and the Murray Darling instead of blaming the States all the time, I would have voted for him in 2007. If MT was Lib leader I would vote for them now. Even though , or more likely because, he's not a true Liberal in that he is capable of showing some compassion and has a focus on big issues not petty politics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Rumpole, you have been trained well by the Fabians.

How did I justify using prostitutes in business exactly? My comments merely highlight why people have more right to be outraged by a union official buying prostitutes for *HIMSELF* using union funds than businessmen buying prostitutes for associates, if they do.

Mate, you are on a hiding to nothing trying to defend this cretin.


----------



## BradK (18 May 2012)

Father Wayne, perhaps you could go and offer Craig some comfort at this time? You seem like a reasonable bloke. :
Ruby and Burnsie have turned their backs on the flock...


----------



## rumpole (18 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> Rumpole, you have been trained well by the Fabians.
> 
> How did I justify using prostitutes in business exactly? My comments merely highlight why people have more right to be outraged by a union official buying prostitutes for *HIMSELF* using union funds than businessmen buying prostitutes for associates, if they do.
> 
> Mate, you are on a hiding to nothing trying to defend this cretin.




Thomson will be tried for his offences and I hope he get what he deserves, so I'm not defending him.

 Union officials are NOT public servants they get paid by their members just like businessmen get paid by the shareholders. The ethical situation is no different between the two areas.

 IF Thomson bought escorts for people who he thought may give his members a better deal ( I'm not saying he did), then the situation is no different to execs buying hookers for clients. People who think there is a difference have double standards.


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2012)

BradK said:


> Father Wayne, perhaps you could go and offer Craig some comfort at this time? You seem like a reasonable bloke. :
> Ruby and Burnsie have turned their backs on the flock...




'Father' 

I think not! :


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Thomson will be tried for his offences and I hope he get what he deserves, so I'm not defending him.
> 
> Union officials are NOT public servants they get paid by their members just like businessmen get paid by the shareholders. The ethical situation is no different between the two areas.
> 
> IF Thomson bought escorts for people who he thought may give his members a better deal ( I'm not saying he did), then the situation is no different to execs buying hookers for clients. People who think there is a difference have double standards.




I said 'akin' to public service.

You are trying to diminish the seriousness of his transgression by attempting to set up some sort of moral equivalency with a string of 'ifs'.

Sorry, it just won't wash with non-Fabians.


----------



## rumpole (18 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> I said 'akin' to public service.
> 
> You are trying to diminish the seriousness of his transgression by attempting to set up some sort of moral equivalency with a string of 'ifs'.
> 
> Sorry, it just won't wash with non-Fabians.




Forget Thomson. I don't really care about him.  I'm asking if the ethics of business and unions should be different. I don't believe they should be, you apparently do.


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Forget Thomson. I don't really care about him.  I'm asking if the ethics of business and unions should be different. I don't believe they should be, you apparently do.




Again you are trying to equate morals with business ethics. The two are different.

Leaving aside the moral argument, there is no difference in ethics between officials paying for prostitutes to the detriment of shareholders/members.

A business that uses prostitutes to enhance a business relationship and shareholder value by securing a deal may be unethical, but not necessarily. It would depend on other factors. Whether that is moral or not is another matter.

Let's not forget that the offer of prostitutes may actually be a deal breaker too. My father refused to deal with one particular company because of this practice, as apart from moral considerations, business ethics were expected to be set aside.


----------



## rumpole (18 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> Let's not forget that the offer of prostitutes may actually be a deal breaker too. My father refused to deal with one particular company because of this practice, as apart from moral considerations, business ethics were expected to be set aside.




I'm sure most of us would do the same, refuse to deal with the company that is.

 Attempts to bribe should be treated with suspicion. If a client wants special 'treatment' to get his business, that's a different matter. How this is dealt with would obviously vary amongst businesses/unions depending on their own moral codes and how badly they need the money.


----------



## dutchie (18 May 2012)

Thomson's speech on Monday will have the Abbott Abbott Abbott sound about it.

He will blame others (probably union members) for his crimes, they hacked his mobile, used his drivers license and credit card, brilliantly forged his signature, on a number of occasions and then put them all back so he did not know. He was happy to sign off on all his credit card items later on though. He siphoned off money to pay for his election to parliament as this is what all those hard working health workers wanted - him to represent them in government.

Just like the Labor party its never their own fault if something goes wrong or if they are found out.

This speech will be an insult to all Australians.  

All Australians (including both sides of parliament) should turn their backs to him when he sprouts his lies. 

This bloke is a mongrel and is bludging off Australia.


----------



## rumpole (18 May 2012)

dutchie said:


> Thomson's speech on Monday will have the Abbott Abbott Abbott sound about it.
> 
> He will blame others (probably union members) for his crimes, they hacked his mobile, used his drivers license and credit card, brilliantly forged his signature, on a number of occasions and then put them all back so he did not know. He was happy to sign off on all his credit card items later on though. He siphoned off money to pay for his election to parliament as this is what all those hard working health workers wanted - him to represent them in government.
> 
> ...




I'll listen to what he has to say, but it had better be good.


----------



## dutchie (18 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I'll listen to what he has to say, but it had better be good.




Your more patient than I am rumpole.

He will not say anything new that we don't know already.


----------



## MrBurns (18 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I did not realise you were a fellow member.
> 
> gg




Normally I would know by the handshake but I've never met you....as far as I know.


----------



## joea (18 May 2012)

dutchie said:


> Your more patient than I am rumpole.
> 
> He will not say anything new that we don't know already.




dutchie
I am not sure about that!

He has had a few days, and because he is so imaginable, I think he will come up with a few more twists and turns. Anything to make the process more complex, to prevent the so called law courts to resolve the fiasco.
I have decided to just accept, his actions, the politics and finally how it will be dealt with to be just a joke. That joke of course is on the Australian people, not just the voter, because any 10 year old will tell you the whole process is corrupt.

dutchie has got it covered in his post! 219
joea


----------



## joea (18 May 2012)

BETTER STILL!

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...mp-craig-thomson/story-e6freuzr-1226360120203

joea


----------



## rumpole (18 May 2012)

joea said:


> BETTER STILL!
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...mp-craig-thomson/story-e6freuzr-1226360120203
> 
> joea




Woowee. It's as good as buying a lotto ticket !


----------



## StumpyPhantom (18 May 2012)

Oh yeah

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...o-blame-spoofing/story-fn7q4q9f-1226359367574

He was SPOOFING alright

Oh yeah, Ooooh yeah. oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah,.......you get the picture....


----------



## Knobby22 (18 May 2012)

The union members should ask Bob Ellis for the money that went to other union officials that didn't get into Parliament.


----------



## rumpole (18 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> Oh yeah
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...o-blame-spoofing/story-fn7q4q9f-1226359367574
> 
> ...




Spoofing would be hard to prove I imagine. Good luck with that Craig...


----------



## BradK (18 May 2012)

Finally Bob Ellis making some attempt at pastoral care... 

http://www.news.com.au/national/bob...mp-craig-thomson/story-e6frfkvr-1226360457172


----------



## Julia (18 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Spoofing would be hard to prove I imagine. Good luck with that Craig...



This was raised on Radio National Breakfast this morning and they had a tech expert in to discuss it.  He said the calls would still end up on Craig Thomson's phone bill which would discredit the notion that he hadn't made the calls.

Does anyone know what time on Monday Mr Thomson will be informing the parliament of how badly done by he is?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 May 2012)

Julia said:


> This was raised on Radio National Breakfast this morning and they had a tech expert in to discuss it.  He said the calls would still end up on Craig Thomson's phone bill which would discredit the notion that he hadn't made the calls.
> 
> Does anyone know what time on Monday Mr Thomson will be informing the parliament of how badly done by he is?




I believe it will be high noon for him on Monday.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (18 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I believe it will be high noon for him on Monday.
> 
> gg




or as we knew it in the old days, the gallows hour


----------



## StumpyPhantom (18 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> or as we knew it in the old days, the gallows hour




It's not beyond the bounds of possibility (is it?), given that Thomson would have been listening to Gillard and Co make self-righteous speeches at the ACTU conference as to how disgusted they are (Thomson would be under no delusion who is being referred to), that he's going to drop a bombshell and quit Parliament altogether so as to force the election?

He's got his pension entitlements, the ALP would rather set dobermanns on him than pre-select him for Dobell, so what does he have to lose?

Quitting would allow him to go underground, and lessen the chance of a criminal conviction interfering with his retirement funds.

If he's mad enough to say "someone set me up", it would take less madness to quit.


----------



## rumpole (19 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> If he's mad enough to say "someone set me up", it would take less madness to quit.




Might be best for Labor if he did, rather than having the stench hang around until the next election. Labor would need to find the most popular candidate (or a tame independent perhaps), they could and pull out all the stops in a by-election, cross their fingers and hope.

 The line would be "we gave Thomson a chance to explain himself but he didn't so we won't tolerate him in the party...blah blah ". 

Desperate but it might work.


----------



## drsmith (19 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> It's not beyond the bounds of possibility (is it?), given that Thomson would have been listening to Gillard and Co make self-righteous speeches at the ACTU conference as to how disgusted they are (Thomson would be under no delusion who is being referred to), that he's going to drop a bombshell and quit Parliament altogether so as to force the election?
> 
> He's got his pension entitlements, the ALP would rather set dobermanns on him than pre-select him for Dobell, so what does he have to lose?
> 
> ...



Julia Gillard's comments are for public consumption, not Craig Thomson's. If he quits now, he'll have Labor on his back in addition to everybody else.

Pre-selection is where Labor will be quietly encouraging him to go underground I would imagine. I'm quietly hoping he drops a bomshell on Monday, but not expecting it.


----------



## Ruby (20 May 2012)

BradK said:


> And Mr Burns, do you, unlike Ruby think that Mr Thompson is entitled to some pastoral care? JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!




Please do not twist my words Brad.  I did *not *say Craig Thompson was not entitled to pastoral care.  He is entitled to all the pastoral care he wants.  All he has to do is seek it out and avail himself of it.


----------



## Ruby (20 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I don't have rigid political views Julia, I just try to see both sides.
> 
> If anyone here denies that some businesses use prostitutes as a business expense to entertain clients they have their heads in the sand. No one has answered whether they as shareholders would approve if it increased company profits. It's a simple question. Morals vs money, which side would you be on ? Or would a blind eye be turned ?




Rumpole, what happens in other businesses is not really relevant to this thread.  The fact that other people in other businesses indulge in similar behaviour does not make it right.  This thread is about Craig Thompson.


----------



## rumpole (20 May 2012)

Ruby said:


> Rumpole, what happens in other businesses is not really relevant to this thread.  The fact that other people in other businesses indulge in similar behaviour does not make it right.  This thread is about Craig Thompson.




Indeed. Well as tainted as Thomson is, it wouldn't stop the Opposition accepting his vote in a no-confidence motion, according to Joe Hockey

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...t-accepting-thomsons-vote-20120516-1yqmb.html

Oh, the hypocrisy !!!


----------



## Calliope (20 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Indeed. Well as tainted as Thomson is, it wouldn't stop the Opposition accepting his vote in a no-confidence motion, according to Joe Hockey
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...t-accepting-thomsons-vote-20120516-1yqmb.html
> 
> Oh, the hypocrisy !!!




Nonsense. If his vote could help to destroy the illegitimate Labor government, then it would be stupidity to reject it. Here in Qld. only 23% of electors support the Gillard government. Why should we be denied an opportunity to turf her and her gang out just because you and your ilk want to retain Thomson in parliament till the end of term.


----------



## rumpole (20 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Nonsense. If his vote could help to destroy the illegitimate Labor government, then it would be stupidity to reject it. Here in Qld. only 23% of electors support the Gillard government. Why should we be denied an opportunity to turf her and her gang out just because you and your ilk want to retain Thomson in parliament till the end of term.




In that case you obviously don't think Thomson's vote is tainted, and there is no reason why Gillard shouldn't accept it if the Opposition would ?


----------



## Julia (20 May 2012)

That is unbelievably stupid of Joe Hockey.  It would never happen.  Even if Thomson's delusions become more exaggerated than at present, he would never vote with the Opposition.

So stupid Hockey has laid himself wide open to totally deserved criticism for something that he should have simply dismissed.

Mr Hockey is one of the Opposition's senior members in whom I'd have minimal confidence.  He's all bluster and no substance imo.

He sees himself as Treasurer apparently.   Hard to imagine that filling the electorate with confidence.


----------



## rumpole (20 May 2012)

Julia said:


> That is unbelievably stupid of Joe Hockey.  It would never happen.  Even if Thomson's delusions become more exaggerated than at present, he would never vote with the Opposition.
> 
> So stupid Hockey has laid himself wide open to totally deserved criticism for something that he should have simply dismissed.
> 
> ...




I agree Julia. If they are not going to make Malcolm Turnbull leader, his obvious portfolio is Treasury. Hockey is not laying a glove on the government, Turnbull would.


----------



## Calliope (20 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> In that case you obviously don't think Thomson's vote is tainted, and there is no reason why Gillard shouldn't accept it if the Opposition would ?




It doesn't matter how "tainted" it is, if it is for a good cause. I can think of no better cause than the downfall of the Gillard government. Gillard's acceptance of his vote would be only to prolong our misery, something you obviously agree with.

However it is purely a hypothetical and won't happen.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (20 May 2012)

Craig Thomson's got to be very careful here.

To Craig: if you're one of the posters in ASF, reveal yourself.  Or maybe just read this carefully before you make your statement (my version of pastoral care).

I don't know whether your lawyers are still checking over your every move, now that you don't have plastic cards or plastic political party funds to splash around.

But your pre-Parliamentary statement statements (ie with Laurie Oakes) indicates to me that you think you've got a trump up your sleeve in the form of Parliamentary privilege, and that you're going to name names.

That in itself carries some adverse implications, but as Xenophon showed less than a year ago when he named that priest, you can probably get away with it.

What's much more serious is the act of misleading Parliament.  That usually happens when a pointed question is asked, and the answer is the opposite of what it should be.

You'd have to be much more stupid, in making an unprompted statement, to mislead Parliament in doing so (but then, ah well forget it).

So, your statement is going to be heavily scrutinised.  Be careful now, for when you previously sued a media organisation for defamation, it only took one round of evidence to show you up.  

So don't be surprised, that in making a statement which raises more questions than it answers, that there won't be some bushy squirrel burrowing out to contradict you.  The act of misleading Parliament will bring down the whole house of cards.


----------



## Julia (20 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> It doesn't matter how "tainted" it is, if it is for a good cause. I can think of no better cause than the downfall of the Gillard government. Gillard's acceptance of his vote would be only to prolong our misery, something you obviously agree with.
> 
> However it is purely a hypothetical and won't happen.




No, it won't.  But the point about the hypocrisy is valid.
Doesn't matter that it would be for 'a good cause'.
You can't accuse the government of accepting a tainted vote and then do the same yourself if you want to retain any credibility, a quality that is too often lacking on both sides.


----------



## Calliope (20 May 2012)

Julia said:


> No, it won't.  But the point about the hypocrisy is valid.




Nonsense. Any move to excise a cancer on Parliament is valid.


----------



## Tyler Durden (20 May 2012)




----------



## noco (20 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Nonsense. If his vote could help to destroy the illegitimate Labor government, then it would be stupidity to reject it. Here in Qld. only 23% of electors support the Gillard government. Why should we be denied an opportunity to turf her and her gang out just because you and your ilk want to retain Thomson in parliament till the end of term.




I agree, anything to get rid of Gillard.
+1


----------



## stacks (20 May 2012)

Julia said:


> No, it won't.  But the point about the hypocrisy is valid.
> Doesn't matter that it would be for 'a good cause'.
> You can't accuse the government of accepting a tainted vote and then do the same yourself if you want to retain any credibility, a quality that is too often lacking on both sides.




The opposition moves a no confidence motion, one of the reasons is: a member of the ALP is unfit to be in his position because he misused public funds, and without that member, the party would not be in government. Said member agrees with the no confidence motion - why would you, how could you,  not accept that vote.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (20 May 2012)

noco said:


> I agree, anything to get rid of Gillard.
> +1




Boy!  Has she got something coming at the next election...everywhere I look, there is this venom.

It's the same poison that this whole Thomson affair seems to have corroborated.

Once that explicit bond of trust is broken, it really unleashes the wolves.  And the vicious savagery is such that this wild hunt won't cease until the electorate gets to have its say.


----------



## rumpole (20 May 2012)

stacks said:


> Said member agrees with the no confidence motion - why would you, how could you,  not accept that vote.




Integrity perhaps ? Consistency. The other side should not accept his vote, but we will.

What was that about trust ?


----------



## stacks (20 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Integrity perhaps ? Consistency. The other side should not accept his vote, but we will.
> 
> What was that about trust ?




How about not quoting half my post so the meaning is totally lost, what, are you a journalist or PR guy? Spin hard, doc, you have a tough job ahead of you


----------



## rumpole (20 May 2012)

stacks said:


> How about not quoting half my post so the meaning is totally lost, what, are you a journalist or PR guy? Spin hard, doc, you have a tough job ahead of you




Stuff your post mate, everyone talks about broken trust. Hockey just made himself out to be a complete fool by being such a hypocrite, and can't be trusted with the Treasury portfolio with $70 billion black holes.


----------



## stacks (20 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Stuff your post mate, everyone talks about broken trust. Hockey just made himself out to be a complete fool by being such a hypocrite, and can't be trusted with the Treasury portfolio with $70 billion black holes.




Your emotions are showing rumpole. A professional really should remain emotionless. I didnt say a word about trust.  

But we digress from the topic.. Will be an interesting speech tomorrow. Lets hope it deals with facts only, and inquiry may lead to a suspension and one less voting member in parliament, uh oh...


----------



## Calliope (20 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Hockey just made himself out to be a complete fool by being such a hypocrite, and can't be trusted with the Treasury portfolio with $70 billion black holes.




Not as big a fool or hypocrite as you for siding with Craig Thomson and Craig Emerson. You are on the losing side.


----------



## Julia (20 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Integrity perhaps ? Consistency. The other side should not accept his vote, but we will.
> 
> What was that about trust ?



I agree.



stacks said:


> Your emotions are showing rumpole. A professional really should remain emotionless. I didnt say a word about trust.



No, you didn't, but it's integral to the whole present political situation.  The Opposition cannot with any credibility castigate the government on its lack of trustworthiness, and accuse them of accepting a tainted vote, and then apply a whole different standard to itself.



> But we digress from the topic.. Will be an interesting speech tomorrow. Lets hope it deals with facts only, and inquiry may lead to a suspension and one less voting member in parliament, uh oh...



 Yes, fascinating to see what he says.  Does anyone know when he will be speaking?
Have a link to Question Time?


----------



## MrBurns (20 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Yes, fascinating to see what he says.  Does anyone know when he will be speaking?
> Have a link to Question Time?




About midday I think, on the ABC no doubt or ABC news on the web, live feed.


----------



## Calliope (20 May 2012)

Julia said:


> .  The Opposition cannot with any credibility castigate the government on its lack of trustworthiness, and accuse them of accepting a tainted vote, and then apply a whole different standard to itself.




Your small "l" liberalism is starting to look like rumpole's left wing bias. You have decided to be a critic of the opposition. Why the holier than thou attitude? Is the other Julia starting to look good to you?


----------



## Julia (20 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Your small "l" liberalism is starting to look like rumpole's left wing bias. You have decided to be a critic of the opposition. Why the holier than thou attitude? Is the other Julia starting to look good to you?



 No, she certainly is not.  On the contrary.  She looks worse with every passing day.

Contrary to your suggestion, I've always been able to see the flaws in the Opposition.
I'm not a confirmed voter for either side, unlike some who will always vote the same way regardless of the talent, behaviour and/or policies of their chosen party.

It's nothing new for me to say that, much as I detest the government and would like nothing better than to see them out of power tomorrow, that does not ipso facto render me an uncritical fan of all the members of the Opposition.

Similarly if Rumpole or any other Labor voter makes a point with which I agree, I don't intend to feel constrained about saying so.
If it's all right with you, of course.


----------



## stacks (20 May 2012)

Julia said:


> No, you didn't, but it's integral to the whole present political situation.  The Opposition cannot with any credibility castigate the government on its lack of trustworthiness, and accuse them of accepting a tainted vote, and then apply a whole different standard to itself.



 I disagree. In my previous post, a perfectly reasonable explanation why Thompsons vote towards a no confidence motion is valid, regardless of the opposition to labour accepting his vote (assuming you believe his spoof explanation)

"The opposition moves a no confidence motion, one of the reasons is: a member (Thompson) of the ALP is unfit to be in his position because he misused public funds, and without that member, the party would not be in government. Said member (Thompson) agrees with the no confidence motion (because his union mates tried to set him up and he was deserted by his party) - why would you, how could you, not accept that vote."

The opposition arent poster boys for the concept of trust but the difference in breaches of trust by the current government and the opposition is about as big a difference in the polls in QLD. Quite closely correlated actually.


----------



## Calliope (20 May 2012)

Julia said:


> I'm not a confirmed voter for either side, unlike some who will always vote the same way regardless of the talent, behaviour and/or policies of their chosen party.
> 
> ...Similarly if Rumpole or any other Labor voter makes a point with which I agree, I don't intend to feel constrained about saying so.
> If it's all right with you, of course.




Sure. Why should I object?  I am pleased you have come out of the closet. Good luck with it.


----------



## rumpole (21 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Not as big a fool or hypocrite as you for siding with Craig Thomson and Craig Emerson. You are on the losing side.




Just read some of my other posts please, once again I say I HOPE THOMSON GETS WHAT HE DESERVES.

However the Thomson debacle has bought out the hypocrisy of the Opposition and SOME of the posters here, as well as the bad handling of the whole issue by the government.

Such events will occur in any party. John Howard had a lot more Cabinet members suspended or in the "sin bin" than Gillard has.

And by the way, personal attacks by you on other members of the forum who express honest opinions, but who you appear to think are "letting the side down" are despicable and simply reveal the type of person you really are.


----------



## joea (21 May 2012)

Well it is interesting to note that the "truth" about this case will no doubt be clothed in different shades of "gray". i.e. gray fitting between the sheets of black and white.
With the slipper case being no different.

We the public wait in anticipation to see what it will be this time.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/legal_affairs/judges_echo_values_of_government_dpshnub02Uf77VmM0iinII

joea


----------



## drsmith (21 May 2012)

Under advice from his lawyers, it looks like Craig Thomson will try to get away with saying as little as possible.



> Mr Thomson promised earlier this month to use the address to parliament to give "a bit more detail" about the former colleague he blames for rorting at the HSU when he was its national secretary.
> 
> But Mr Thomson's lawyers have told him not to level new claims, given the danger that any statement he makes could be used against him if he faces court over the misuse of nearly $500,000 in union funds.
> 
> ...




Labor will be hoping so.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ont-go-on-attack/story-fn59noo3-1226361685338


----------



## MrBurns (21 May 2012)

Saw Richardson on TV this morning, no doubt Thompson is a liar, Gillard could even take lessons from him.


----------



## Calliope (21 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> .
> And by the way, personal attacks by you on other members of the forum who express honest opinions, but who you appear to think are "letting the side down" are despicable and simply reveal the type of person you really are.




Thanks for putting me on the right track Rumpy. And by the way, you have never concealed the type of admirable person you really are.


----------



## joea (21 May 2012)

Well I had fully intended to watch the Thompson speech to Parliament.
However having read the following link, I will be otherwise engaged.
I am now polishing the lens's of my binoculars.

I am expecting to see "pink elephants and yellow pigs to fly by"!!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-open-and-honest/story-e6frg71x-1226361637169

joea


----------



## rumpole (21 May 2012)

joea said:


> Well I had fully intended to watch the Thompson speech to Parliament.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-open-and-honest/story-e6frg71x-1226361637169
> ...




"Mr Thomson should also report what financial and other assistance he has received from the Labor Party, including the cost of his legal bills."

Why should he ? It's a matter between him and the Labor party.


----------



## MrBurns (21 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> "Mr Thomson should also report what financial and other assistance he has received from the Labor Party, including the cost of his legal bills."
> 
> Why should he ? It's a matter between him and the Labor party.




I guess it would be nice to know how far Labor will go to protect sleezy cheats and crims.


----------



## rumpole (21 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I guess it would be nice to know how far Labor will go to protect sleezy cheats and crims.




About as far as the Libs I suspect


----------



## MrBurns (21 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> About as far as the Libs I suspect




Ours have far more class than yours and should be supported.


----------



## rumpole (21 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Ours have far more class than yours and should be supported.




I'd be glad to send a donation if it's tax deductible


----------



## MrBurns (21 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I'd be glad to send a donation if it's tax deductible




Sorry brown paper bag only.


----------



## Calliope (21 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Just read some of my other posts please, once again I say I HOPE THOMSON GETS WHAT HE DESERVES.




Your idea of "GETS WHAT HE DESERVES" probably means exoneration.  



> However the Thomson debacle has bought out the hypocrisy of the Opposition and SOME of the posters here, as well as the bad handling of the whole issue by the government.




Strangely enough you only had one supporter for your "hypocrisy" nonsense. The vast majority of Australians see the Opposition which you denigrate repeatedly, as being the only hope we have to rid us of this illegitimate government


----------



## Julia (21 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Strangely enough you only had one supporter for your "hypocrisy" nonsense. The vast majority of Australians see the Opposition which you denigrate repeatedly, as being the only hope we have to rid us of this illegitimate government



1. The hypocrisy issue and getting rid of the government are two separate issues.
    You know this.  You are simply being your usual self and having a go at anyone who doesn't adhere to your party line.  You criticise Labor supporters for their uncritical support of their party, yet do the same yourself, Calliope.

2.  When someone you perceive as 'on your side'  disagrees with you on an issue, you feel obliged to subject that person to a personal attack.

3.  I'm sick of it.   If you could give consideration to more civilised responses I, for one, would really appreciate it.


----------



## rumpole (21 May 2012)

> Your idea of "GETS WHAT HE DESERVES" probably means exoneration.




So you think you can read my mind ? What a clever chap you are.

The case should be decided in court, not by Parliament, the media or you or me. That's a right of every citizen. Plenty of people have been charged with something and found not guilty, but if that is not the case and he is found guilty, serves him right. I don't know how many times I have to bang into your thick skull that I hold no brief for Thomson or anyone else of any party that rorts his or her entitlements.

BTW, what is your comment on this ?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ver-alleged-rort/story-e6frgczx-1226361626786


----------



## Calliope (21 May 2012)

Julia said:


> .
> 
> 2.  When someone you perceive as 'on your side'  disagrees with you on an issue, you feel obliged to subject that person to a personal attack.
> 
> 3.  I'm sick of it.   If you could give consideration to more civilised responses I, for one, would really appreciate it.




You and Rumpole are obviously colluding in personal attacks on me. From experience I know that I will be the loser. So I will concede the high moral ground to you and your new friend and withdraw from the debate.


----------



## rumpole (21 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> You and Rumpole are obviously colluding in personal attacks on me. From experience I know that I will be the loser. So I will concede the high moral ground to you and your new friend and withdraw from the debate.




Ah , a conspiracy theorist now !

 You may well be a loser because your argument hasn't a leg to stand on.


----------



## drsmith (21 May 2012)

Someone who is completely legless will be standing (or is that propped up) to say something in the house in about 20 minutes.

He's been deathly silent since his Laurie Oakes interview last weekend.


----------



## rumpole (21 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> Someone who is completely legless will be standing (or is that propped up) to say something in the house in about 20 minutes.
> 
> He's been deathly silent since his Laurie Oakes interview last weekend.




Just cooking the popcorn now...


----------



## drsmith (21 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Just cooking the popcorn now...



He'll be saying as little of substance as possible.

The little dog that's produced such a big smelly poo has been muzzled as per my post earlier today.


----------



## stacks (21 May 2012)

He's done a good job with that speech IMO, I tend to believe most of what he was saying.


----------



## rumpole (21 May 2012)

stacks said:


> He's done a good job with that speech IMO, I tend to believe most of what he was saying.




He's made some serious allegations against FWA which should be investigated by police.

Not to say I think he's innocent, but he raised issues which need investigation.


----------



## stacks (21 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> He's made some serious allegations against FWA which should be investigated by police.
> 
> Not to say I think he's innocent, but he raised issues which need investigation.




Indeed, plenty of things that you would think could and should be proved one way or the other. To court it will go....


----------



## Miss Hale (21 May 2012)

I wasn't very impressed to be honest, he strikes me as not the sharpest tool in the shed.  My overall reaction is that he has raised more allegations but not really addressed the allegations against himself.


----------



## BradK (21 May 2012)

Mr Thompson is the victim of a massive fraud. Great speech. 

There I said it. 

Now for the slings and arrows. 

Brad


----------



## joea (21 May 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I wasn't very impressed to be honest, he strikes me as not the sharpest tool in the shed.  My overall reaction is that he has raised more allegations but not really addressed the allegations against himself.




He achieved his objectives then???

joea


----------



## Miss Hale (21 May 2012)

joea said:


> He achieved his objectives then???
> 
> joea




Depends what his objectives were, if it was to clear his name then I would say, no.


----------



## drsmith (21 May 2012)

joea said:


> He achieved his objectives then???



That's his aim.

It's all about stalling for time when it should be about justifying those calls from his mobile and justifying the expenses on the HSU credit card that was under his responsibllity.


----------



## MrBurns (21 May 2012)

He made some terrible accusations against Kathy Jackson, he's either an even bigger liar than I thought or she is corrupt.

I'm amazed how someone can stand up and just rant on for an hour, he must have spent weeks writing that, so much for the job he is paid to do.


----------



## drsmith (21 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> He made some terrible accusations against Kathy Jackson, he's either an even bigger liar than I thought or she is corrupt.



He's stalling for time. That's why the whole process has been so drawn out in the first case.



MrBurns said:


> I'm amazed how someone can stand up and just rant on for an hour, he must have spent weeks writing that, so much for the job he is paid to do.



Did he write it or did the lawyers and smarter heads in the ALP write it for him ?


----------



## MrBurns (21 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> Did he write it or did the lawyers and smarter heads in the ALP write it for him ?




Sounded more like him, it rambled on about how Jacksons car was funded by the union and other irrelevant innuendo.


----------



## Julia (21 May 2012)

I only heard bits of it but read separately that he said he wants the police to acquire and check the CCTV tapes for the days he is supposed to have been going to brothels which, he says, will demonstrate he wasn't there.

So far I've dismissed any thought that he was being set up, but the above did stop me in my tracks a bit.


----------



## drsmith (21 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Sounded more like him, it rambled on about how Jacksons car was funded by the union and other irrelevant innuendo.



It's possible he suppplied the basic information and others then contributed the speech to put it in the most favourable context.


----------



## Miss Hale (21 May 2012)

Julia said:


> I only heard bits of it but read separately that he said he wants the police to acquire and check the CCTV tapes for the days he is supposed to have been going to brothels which, he says, will demonstrate he wasn't there.




This was not news to me, he has said this before (in a brief interview a week or so ago I think).

This is the first time I've seen parliament for awhile, can't understand why they brought in Anna Burke as speaker instead of getting Harry Jenkin back


----------



## Calliope (21 May 2012)

We should stop picking on the poor little guy.


----------



## drsmith (21 May 2012)

Julia said:


> I only heard bits of it but read separately that he said he wants the police to acquire and check the CCTV tapes for the days he is supposed to have been going to brothels which, he says, will demonstrate he wasn't there.
> 
> So far I've dismissed any thought that he was being set up, but the above did stop me in my tracks a bit.



It doesn't for me. 

The onus of proof is on Carig Thomson to provide a tangable explanation for the expenditure on the HSU credit card for which he was responsible. If he wasn't personally responsible, he also needs to provide a tangable explanation as to why those transections wern't immediately acted upon once identified.

It's ultimately no more complex than that.


----------



## Calliope (21 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> It doesn't for me.
> 
> The onus of proof is on Carig Thomson to provide a tangable explanation for the expenditure on the HSU credit card for which he was responsible. If he wasn't personally responsible, he also needs to provide a tangable explanation as to why those transections wern't immediately acted upon once identified.
> 
> It's ultimately no more complex than that.




You are right. As the SMH says;



> If you were to believe him, Craig Thomson is the victim of the greatest conspiracy in modern Australian public life.
> Enemies within the Health Services Union, an incompetent and possibly malicious Fair Work Australia, large sections of the media, a federal Opposition unfit to govern...all have conspired to ruin his life and his mental health.
> Here was a lone man, rather like Emile Zola writing his famous letter ''J'Accuse'' in 1898, accusing all around him and the mighty of a wicked plot, complete with cooked-up evidence and the rule of law trashed.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...of-them-all-20120521-1z0kw.html#ixzz1vThd4PzT


----------



## Miss Hale (21 May 2012)

With respect to video tape of the brothels, weren't some of them escorts anyway (i.e. the ones that go to your hotel room  ).


----------



## springhill (21 May 2012)

Julia said:


> I only heard bits of it but read separately that he said he wants the police to acquire and check the CCTV tapes for the days he is supposed to have been going to brothels which, he says, will demonstrate he wasn't there.
> 
> So far I've dismissed any thought that he was being set up, but the above did stop me in my tracks a bit.




CCTV tapes are only required to be kept for a minimum of 24 hours (or more depending on other factors). There is no way in hell they would have CCTV from 5-7 years ago, and he would know that.
This white man speak with forked tongue.


----------



## McLovin (21 May 2012)

springhill said:


> CCTV tapes are only required to be kept for a minimum of 24 hours (or more depending on other factors). There is no way in hell they would have CCTV from 5-7 years ago, and he knows that.




Apparently for brothels there is a requirement that they be kept for 5-7 years depending on the state.


----------



## joea (21 May 2012)

Julia said:


> I only heard bits of it but read separately that he said he wants the police to acquire and check the CCTV tapes for the days he is supposed to have been going to brothels which, he says, will demonstrate he wasn't there.




Julia 
My interpretation of that was, it was not so much if  he was there, but the tapes would have shown who else was there. And in that case any tapes he referred to would have been destroyed ages ago.
Because I think the boys got shouted!!
joea


----------



## rumpole (21 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> It doesn't for me.
> 
> The onus of proof is on Carig Thomson to provide a tangable explanation for the expenditure on the HSU credit card for which he was responsible. If he wasn't personally responsible, he also needs to provide a tangable explanation as to why those transections wern't immediately acted upon once identified.
> 
> It's ultimately no more complex than that.




You make a fair point, but it could be more complex than you think. If he wasn't at the brothel at the times in question (and he says he has alibis for at least three occasions), then who was ? If the CCTV tapes are dug up, and no one with connections to Thomson turn up, how did the entries get on the card ? I still think that if he did use the brothel, leaving a trail like he did is absolute stupidity. He sounded more naive than stupid in his address, but I could be wrong about that.

He was responsible for authorising the credit card payments. Did he see the actual transactions, or just look at the final amount , or sign what a staff member gave him ?

 I hope he can answer those questions.


----------



## drsmith (21 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> You make a fair point, but it could be more complex than you think.



While it suits Craig Thomson and Labor to make the detail as complex as possible, it remains very simple in principal.



rumpole said:


> I hope he can answer those questions.



It's obvious that he cannot.


----------



## BradK (21 May 2012)

I think we need to give him a fair go. 

For those who don't believe a word of what he said today, I direct you to his closing remarks about Tony Abbot not being fit as either a PM or an MP. 

Amen that. 

Brad


----------



## drsmith (21 May 2012)

He had a fair go today and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the transactions on his HSU credit card. Until he does that, his character assessments of others is not worth the hot air coming out of his mouth.


----------



## stacks (21 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> He had a fair go today and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the transactions on his HSU credit card. Until he does that, his character assessments of others is not worth the hot air coming out of his mouth.



So guilty until proven innocent then......


----------



## StumpyPhantom (21 May 2012)

stacks said:


> So guilty until proven innocent then......




That's about right, Stacks.

This isn't a criminal prosecution (yet).  The reality is the body with the statutory power to investigate did so, and found him guilty as sin (so to speak).

Why is that so hard to accept?


----------



## noco (21 May 2012)

I think Thomson still has a lot of questions to answer including why he refuses to talk to the police. 



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/thomson_speaks/


----------



## sails (21 May 2012)

BradK said:


> I think we need to give him a fair go.
> 
> For those who don't believe a word of what he said today, I direct you to his closing remarks about Tony Abbot not being fit as either a PM or an MP.
> 
> ...





Pottle, kettle.  

Abbott doesn't have the same allegations as Thomson, and yet Thomson refuses to step aside while trying to make Abbott look worse than him?

If Thomson really believes Abbott is not fit to be an MP, what makes him think he is fit to be one?  1127 pages of FWA report?  On his own beliefs, shouldn't Thompson step aside NOW?

Get real...


----------



## MrBurns (21 May 2012)

One thing is for sure, either Thompson or Jackson is a liar of the first order....it really comes down to who do you believe.

As far as his comments about Abbott go , Abbott;s not the one who has to prove he didn't spend other peoples money on prostitutes.


----------



## banco (21 May 2012)

stacks said:


> So guilty until proven innocent then......




The innocent until proven guilty doctrine is something that applies in the Court system.  There's no reason for the public to pretend someone is innocent if they are found holding a smoking gun.


----------



## drsmith (21 May 2012)

stacks said:


> So guilty until proven innocent then......



Guilty that his HSU credit card was used for improper purposes ?

*Guilty.*

Craig Thomson himself is not denying that position against the weight of evidence, nor is the government. He is rather trying to come up with exotic explanations to buy time for himself and the government.

These explanations however fail to address his responsibilities for the management of that credit card and the expenditure therein. This will ultimately be his and the Labor government's undoing.


----------



## drsmith (21 May 2012)

What's going on here ?

http://twitter.com/#/7NewsSydney/status/204430949327441921

I would have thought that if Ch7 was going to deny Craig Thomson's claim about reporters hovering under his bathroom, they would make a public statement.


----------



## awg (21 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> One thing is for sure, either Thompson or Jackson is a liar of the first order....it really comes down to who do you believe.




Dont beleive either of them, lying with their snouts in the trough of union members dues.

Her partner being 2IC at Fair Work makes the report lamentably conflicted imo


----------



## banco (21 May 2012)

We already know beyond a shadow of a doubt he's a lying scumbag.  

On May 18 2011 FWA received an email from Mr Thomson further stating that Fairfax had settled, Mr Thomson told FWA, because its own handwriting expert had concluded "the signatures on the credit card forms [for brothel receipts] were forged". He was also able to prove that his former wife, Christa, "was with me at the precise times the card was being used in locations in Sydney", he told FWA.

"The statements ... made by you to FWA were false," Fairfax Media, the publisher of the Herald, said in a legal letter to Mr Thomson.

"Fairfax is extremely concerned that you have deliberately misled FWA in relation to the statements made by you ... and the circumstances leading to the settlement of the proceedings brought by you."

These statements are false and Fairfax has written to Mr Thomson demanding that he correct them with FWA.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...explanation-20120521-1z0wx.html#ixzz1vV2zaweM


----------



## Julia (21 May 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> This was not news to me, he has said this before (in a brief interview a week or so ago I think).



Then I wonder why no media has followed it up?  Perhaps because of the understanding, provided on this thread, that such footage is destroyed after 24 hours.  Media would, if that's the case, have simply dismissed the suggestion by Thomson as more of his ravings.



> This is the first time I've seen parliament for awhile, can't understand why they brought in Anna Burke as speaker instead of getting Harry Jenkin back



Because Anna Burke is the Deputy Speaker.



drsmith said:


> It doesn't for me.
> 
> The onus of proof is on Carig Thomson to provide a tangable explanation for the expenditure on the HSU credit card for which he was responsible. If he wasn't personally responsible, he also needs to provide a tangable explanation as to why those transections wern't immediately acted upon once identified.
> 
> It's ultimately no more complex than that.



 Yes,  you're quite right.



Miss Hale said:


> With respect to video tape of the brothels, weren't some of them escorts anyway (i.e. the ones that go to your hotel room  ).



Yep that occurred to me also.  Why would any CCTV  footage show Thomson actually at the brothel if he had made a call out for a prostitute to come to his hotel room.
Presumably the girls carry EFTPOS facilities  for outcalls?



BradK said:


> I think we need to give him a fair go.
> 
> For those who don't believe a word of what he said today, I direct you to his closing remarks about Tony Abbot not being fit as either a PM or an MP.
> 
> ...



Brad, that's pretty silly.  Tony Abbott does not stand accused of any impropriety.
Your disliking him hardly disqualifies him from being a decent person and/or well qualified to be an MP.
That ridiculous statement from Thomson imo put the seal on his delusional state of mind.


----------



## Julia (21 May 2012)

banco said:


> We already know beyond a shadow of a doubt he's a lying scumbag.
> 
> On May 18 2011 FWA received an email from Mr Thomson further stating that Fairfax had settled, Mr Thomson told FWA, because its own handwriting expert had concluded "the signatures on the credit card forms [for brothel receipts] were forged". He was also able to prove that his former wife, Christa, "was with me at the precise times the card was being used in locations in Sydney", he told FWA.
> 
> ...




Good to have Fairfax's slant on it which dispels Thomson's statement that Fairfax "settled with him".  Makes a world of difference.


----------



## stacks (21 May 2012)

banco said:


> The innocent until proven guilty doctrine is something that applies in the Court system.  There's no reason for the public to pretend someone is innocent if they are found holding a smoking gun.



Unless someone else had used the gun and then threw it to them as the police walked around the corner.....It could happen you know. If phone spoofing is possible......

Im not defending Thompson, I'm saying that he has raised some doubt as to who actually used the card. His objective today no doubt. Either he or Ms Jackson and Mr Bolano are lying. I dont know which, for certain, do you?


----------



## StumpyPhantom (21 May 2012)

stacks said:


> Unless someone else had used the gun and then threw it to them as the police walked around the corner.....It could happen you know. If phone spoofing is possible......
> 
> Im not defending Thompson, I'm saying that he has raised some doubt as to who actually used the card. His objective today no doubt. Either he or Ms Jackson and Mr Bolano are lying. I dont know which, for certain, do you?




I keep coming back to this.  If someone else used the card, then Thomson himself admits that he has no explanation for why he signed off on the monthly statements, knowing all the while that someone was out to 'set him up with hookers'.

And come on - this "I don't know which, for certain" is a cop out isn't it?  I don't know for certain Ivan Milat is a serial killer, do you?  He, like Thomson, keeps saying he's innocent.  Is that all you need?


----------



## stacks (21 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> I keep coming back to this.  If someone else used the card, then Thomson himself admits that he has no explanation for why he signed off on the monthly statements, knowing all the while that someone was out to 'set him up with hookers'.
> 
> And come on - this "I don't know which, for certain" is a cop out isn't it?  I don't know for certain Ivan Milat is a serial killer, do you?  He, like Thomson, keeps saying he's innocent.  Is that all you need?




Its not a cop out, I dont need a cop out, its just what I think after his speech today. I think their was some reasonable doubts raised about what has actually gone on.

Ivan Milat has been convicted... in court.... by a jury..... after a trial.

I dont know if he is a serial killer, for certain. But the members of the jury were certain, 100%, that he was guilty after hearing evidence in that trial. Thats how justice should work. 

So you are telling me you know for certain, without a doubt he was lying about not being with those hookers??
You cant know that unless you are Craig Thompson, the hooker, or have access to more evidence than most of the media in the country at the moment.......If you do and you are certain, you should contact someone, I'm sure youd get good money from Fairfax for your story.

Im not disputing he should have known about what his card was being used for before signing off, and he is ultimately responsible for that, merely that there is some doubt in my mind about what actually happened.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (21 May 2012)

stacks said:


> Its not a cop out, I dont need a cop out, its just what I think after his speech today. I think their was some reasonable doubts raised about what has actually gone one.
> 
> So you are telling me you know for certain, without a doubt he was lying about not being with those hookers??  You cant know that unless you are Craig Thompson, the hooker, or have access to more evidence than most of the media in the country at the moment....
> 
> Im not disputing he should have known about what his card was being used for before signing off, and he is ultimately responsible for that, merely that there is some doubt in my mind about what actually happened.




Stop focusing on the hookers.  That's the sensational bit.  I was referring to him signing off his card every month, ultimately containing $500,000 of expenditure, some of which related to hookers.

So when you remove this 'doubt in my mind about what actually happened' as it relates to hookers, do you accept he is 'ultimately responsible' (your words) for withdrawing $100,000 in cash advances?  You make it sound like that's OK, so long as he had nothing to do with hookers.


----------



## rumpole (22 May 2012)

If anyone in this case is completely innocent, they should take polygraphs. I know they are not admissable in court but the case is not in court yet. If they pass the tests or are willing to sign statutory declarations, that would give them more credibility in the media, which is where this case is being fought at the moment.


----------



## joea (22 May 2012)

Most people have watch the Thompson speech.
Here is Joe Hildebrand's version of what he said.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...cal-man-of-straw/story-e6frezz0-1226362744473

joea


----------



## joea (22 May 2012)

Labor owns Craig Thompson. Craig says he will not quit, because that will say he is guilty.
This fiasco will continue and Thompson will be financially compensated when its all over.
Or that is what the link suggests..
The voters will just have to sit back, watch and listen.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-for-labors-life-of-shame-20120520-1yys2.html

joea


----------



## dutchie (22 May 2012)

Still a scumbag


----------



## MrBurns (22 May 2012)

Julia said:


> I only heard bits of it but read separately that he said he wants the police to acquire and check the CCTV tapes for the days he is supposed to have been going to brothels which, he says, will demonstrate he wasn't there.
> 
> So far I've dismissed any thought that he was being set up, but the above did stop me in my tracks a bit.






> Thomson will never get brothel tapes, expert says
> 
> But Chris Seage, who runs sex industry consulting firm Brothel Busters, says brothels in Sydney are only regulated by local council planning laws and only a small per cent have CCTV - let alone keep tapes of clients.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-22/thomson-will-never-get-brothel-tapes-expert-says/4024956

Well that takes caes of that one


----------



## stacks (22 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> Stop focusing on the hookers.  That's the sensational bit.  I was referring to him signing off his card every month, ultimately containing $500,000 of expenditure, some of which related to hookers.
> 
> So when you remove this 'doubt in my mind about what actually happened' as it relates to hookers, do you accept he is 'ultimately responsible' (your words) for withdrawing $100,000 in cash advances?  You make it sound like that's OK, so long as he had nothing to do with hookers.




Ok, remove the hookers, fine. Your missing my point. 

 I just think there is doubt about what actually happened. This doubt could well be fabricated and he's actually guilty as Ivan, but this should and seemingly could be proven in court. As it no doubt will be, at some time probably closer to the next election, which is a shame.

I agree he was ultimately responsible (Ive said so twice now). Yes he withdrew cash, which was wrong, he said in his speech he withdrew cash, noones disputing that. That was not the right procedure, he said that in his speech also, noones disputing that either. BUT he said he spent it on union business, I dont know if he did or not, neither do you.

I feel for all the HSU members the most, Id be filthy if I was them. Seems the oversight and executive procedures was totally inadequate for a long time


----------



## Klogg (22 May 2012)

stacks said:


> Ok, remove the hookers, fine. Your missing my point.
> 
> I just think there is doubt about what actually happened. This doubt could well be fabricated and he's actually guilty as Ivan, but this should and seemingly could be proven in court. As it no doubt will be, at some time probably closer to the next election, which is a shame.
> 
> ...




I agree with you that we can't assume he's guilty until proven in court, but we can assume that he's involved in some dreadful behaviours within the unions that shouldn't be tolerated by parliament.

If threats were made as substantial as the one Thomson speaks of, then wouldn't someone in such a position know better than to drag such things on?

It's not the crime I want to punish him for, the courts will do that - it's the filthy behaviours


----------



## sails (22 May 2012)

Klogg said:


> I agree with you that we can't assume he's guilty until proven in court, but we can assume that he's involved in some dreadful behaviours within the unions that shouldn't be tolerated by parliament.
> 
> If threats were made as substantial as the one Thomson speaks of, then wouldn't someone in such a position know better than to drag such things on?
> 
> It's not the crime I want to punish him for, the courts will do that - it's the filthy behaviours





Wouldn't it be the "honourable" thing to step aside until the courts make their decision?  The allegations are no where near "honourable".

To step aside does not remove the presumption of innocence.  It would be better for all (except Gillard and her merry indies) if he did the honourable thing until he is cleared or otherwise by the courts, imo.


----------



## rumpole (22 May 2012)

> Wouldn't it be the "honourable" thing to step aside until the courts make their decision?




Yes t would be honourable for Thomson to step aside, as it would be honourable of the Opposition to give him a pairing , since no charges have yet been proven.


----------



## Calliope (22 May 2012)

Klogg said:


> I agree with you that we can't assume he's guilty until proven in court




We can assume anything we like. Forget about "presumption of innocence". That condition applies only in a court of law during a trial. Just follow your nose







Some of the brothel/escort services paid for on Thomson's credit card may have been for his mates. Remember Richo's romps.



> FORMER Labor cabinet minister Graham Richardson enjoyed sexual favours from prostitutes paid for by a Gold Coast businessman on at least two occasions, according to previously suppressed prosecution documents . . . Gold Coast madam Jacqui Leyden alleged [Nick] Karlos paid her $4000 cash for Richardson to have a three-hour sex romp with two prostitutes. The full extent of the police case has only come to light after Richardson spent two years trying to block the release of documents.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-girls-priceless/story-fn72xczz-1226119208365


----------



## rumpole (22 May 2012)

> Some of the brothel/escort services paid for on Thomson's credit card may have been for his mates. Remember Richo's romps.




Nothing would surprise me about Richardson.


----------



## sails (22 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Yes t would be honourable for Thomson to step aside, as it would be honourable of the Opposition to give him a pairing , since no charges have yet been proven.




lol - do the opposition currently pair any other independent?  Independent usually means they stand alone.

And, if he honourably stands aside, then no pairing is necessary...


----------



## Calliope (22 May 2012)

sails said:


> lol - do the opposition currently pair any other independent?  Independent usually means they stand alone.
> 
> And, if he honourably stands aside, then no pairing is necessary...




I think the stench coming from Gillard, Oakeshott and Windsor is as great as that coming from Thomson. They are deliberately using this low life to hold up a corrupt government. Oakeshott and Windsor could get rid of this cancer in a heartbeat if they weren't so weak. They are guilty of aiding and abetting a disgraceful farce.


----------



## MrBurns (22 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Nothing would surprise me about Richardson.




A senior Australian elder statesman is entitled to a bit of harmless fum for goodnesss sake when he's on an arduous fact finding mission overseas away from the loving arms of the missus.


----------



## rumpole (22 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> A senior Australian elder statesman is entitled to a bit of harmless fum for goodnesss sake when he's on an arduous fact finding mission overseas away from the loving arms of the missus.




Very understanding of you Burnsy. He does need a lot of visits to Switzerland to cuddle his money.


----------



## Calliope (22 May 2012)

joea said:


> Most people have watch the Thompson speech.
> Here is Joe Hildebrand's version of what he said.
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...cal-man-of-straw/story-e6frezz0-1226362744473
> ...




I think Thomson is missing his vocation He should be a stand-up comedian. His best throw-away line was;  

"What you have done (Opposition Leader Tony Abbott) is not just damage to an individual or their family. You have damaged democracy, and you continue to damage democracy and you should hang your head in shame for that."


----------



## Judd (22 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> I think Thomson is missing his vocation He should be a stand-up comedian. His best throw-away line was;
> 
> "What you have done (Opposition Leader Tony Abbott) is not just damage to an individual or their family. You have damaged democracy, and you continue to damage democracy and you should hang your head in shame for that."




I watched most of it, read some transcripts, scanned some news articles and came to a view that his defense, if you can call it that, was self-serving, evasive, implausible in a number of aspects and an attempt to raise allegations which would require investigation in order to delay the inevitable.  It was, again in my view, a disgrace and an insult to Parliament and, as a consequence, the Australian electorate, especially his own constituents.

I am deeply embarrassed that my country and my country's governing Parliament has been displayed in this light.

It was shameful.


----------



## Miss Hale (22 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> I think Thomson is missing his vocation He should be a stand-up comedian. His best throw-away line was;
> 
> "What you have done (Opposition Leader Tony Abbott) is not just damage to an individual or their family. You have damaged democracy, and you continue to damage democracy and you should hang your head in shame for that."




This was the most confusing part of his speech, what was Abbott supposed to have done?  Then he went on to say Abbott was unfit to be an MP, coming from Thomson this was laughable!


----------



## tech/a (22 May 2012)

> "We are going to set you up with hookers"



"You can send as many as you like I will politely turn them away".

How hard is that???


----------



## startrader (22 May 2012)

Judd said:


> I watched most of it, read some transcripts, scanned some news articles and came to a view that his defense, if you can call it that, was self-serving, evasive, implausible in a number of aspects and an attempt to raise allegations which would require investigation in order to delay the inevitable.  It was, again in my view, a disgrace and an insult to Parliament and, as a consequence, the Australian electorate, especially his own constituents.
> 
> I am deeply embarrassed that my country and my country's governing Parliament has been displayed in this light.
> 
> It was shameful.




Hear, hear!  The whole thing is absolutely appalling and he should never have been allowed to speak for *AN HOUR*!  He can't defend the indefensible and he should be somewhere under a rock.  I don't know how he has the gall to show his face.  Ok, he did whatever he did and the Labor party is actually culpable now for failing to deal with this in an appropriate way.  How could they stoop SO low?  They don't have a clue about what is right and wrong - they have to go and the sooner the better!


----------



## joea (22 May 2012)

Judd said:


> I am deeply embarrassed that my country and my country's governing Parliament has been displayed in this light.
> 
> It was shameful.




I think at least 75% of the Australian people would agree with this statement, and there are billions around the world hoping it does not happen to their country.

Our politicians have to get themselves of the gutter first, in the first step to rectify the overall problem !!

joea


----------



## noco (22 May 2012)

Thomson spoke about someone cloning his phone. According experts, this can only be done by top soies.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...to-phone-cloning/story-fn59niix-1226362893537


----------



## rumpole (22 May 2012)

I think he's basically shot himself in the foot. 

Allegations without proof is not a good look.

But can he be held up for misleading Parliament if its his word against someone elses ?

That should be tested in court under oath.


----------



## McLovin (22 May 2012)

noco said:


> Thomson spoke about someone cloning his phone. According experts, this can only be done by top soies.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...to-phone-cloning/story-fn59niix-1226362893537




I have an app on my iPhone that lets me make calls or send text messages as if I'm doing it from another phone number. So for instance I could ring person A from my phone but when I ring them it will show up as though I am person B. It's pretty fun to use down at the pub after a few beers.


----------



## MrBurns (22 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> I have an app on my iPhone that lets me make calls or send text messages as if I'm doing it from another phone number. So for instance I could ring person A from my phone but when I ring them it will show up as though I am person B. It's pretty fun to use down at the pub after a few beers.




and that app is ?


----------



## rumpole (22 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> I have an app on my iPhone that lets me make calls or send text messages as if I'm doing it from another phone number. So for instance I could ring person A from my phone but when I ring them it will show up as though I am person B. It's pretty fun to use down at the pub after a few beers.




So whose account does the call appear on ? Yours or Person B ? Would be neat if you could get someone else to pay for your calls.


----------



## startrader (22 May 2012)

noco said:


> Thomson spoke about someone cloning his phone. According experts, this can only be done by top soies.
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...to-phone-cloning/story-fn59niix-1226362893537




I heard that the technology didn't exist at the time he alleges that this happened.


----------



## moXJO (22 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> I have an app on my iPhone that lets me make calls or send text messages as if I'm doing it from another phone number. So for instance I could ring person A from my phone but when I ring them it will show up as though I am person B. It's pretty fun to use down at the pub after a few beers.




It does not go on their phone records


----------



## McLovin (22 May 2012)

moXJO said:


> It does not go on their phone records




That's true.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (22 May 2012)

tech/a said:


> "You can send as many as you like I will politely turn them away".
> 
> *How hard is that???*




Was that meant as a pun?


----------



## joea (22 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> I have an app on my iPhone that lets me make calls or send text messages as if I'm doing it from another phone number. So for instance I could ring person A from my phone but when I ring them it will show up as though I am person B. It's pretty fun to use down at the pub after a few beers.




Does the app. withdraw the $400 - $500 from the atm as well.??
joea


----------



## tech/a (22 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> Was that meant as a pun?




I think he should harden up!


----------



## sails (22 May 2012)

A poll from the SMH and over 49,000 votes:



> Poll: Do you believe Craig Thomson?
> 
> Yes, he was convincing     15%
> 
> ...




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/thomson-gives-pm-a-reprieve-20120521-1z1fo.html


----------



## medicowallet (22 May 2012)

joea said:


> Does the app. withdraw the $400 - $500 from the atm as well.??
> joea




And the person receiving the call thinks it is coming from the different number, but no doubt 

the bill still goes to the op account.

MW


----------



## awg (22 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> A senior Australian elder statesman is entitled to a bit of harmless fum for goodnesss sake when he's on an arduous fact finding mission overseas away from the loving arms of the missus.




Now that you remind me..didnt a very tall, Very senior liberal find himself without wallet and pants in mysterious circs in the USA back in the 80's


----------



## Julia (22 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> We can assume anything we like. Forget about "presumption of innocence". That condition applies only in a court of law during a trial. Just follow your nose



Yet it's sanctimoniously uttered several times every day lately.



tech/a said:


> "You can send as many as you like I will politely turn them away".
> 
> How hard is that???



Excellent point.



moXJO said:


> It does not go on their phone records






McLovin said:


> That's true.




So doesn't the fact that the calls appeared on his phone bill eliminate the possibility of such a transfer of calls?


----------



## Julia (22 May 2012)

Succinct and appropriate comment from Bernard Keane of Crikey on Mr Thomson's performance yesterday.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ntent=43039&utm_campaign=pm&modapt=commentary


----------



## Calliope (23 May 2012)

There is a move afoot to paint the Opposition as the villains and Thomson as their victim. Anthony Albanese  has said he will go all the way to protect Thomson, including getting enough dirt on their front benchers to refer *them* to the privileges committee. As Labor has the numbers in the committee this is not an empty threat.

The independents are also seeing an opportunity to attack the hated opposition;



> Mr Oakeshott also issued a veiled warning to the opposition that has argued the government should not rely on the "tainted" vote of Mr Thomson, arguing the privileges committee might be asked to look at Section 28 of the Crimes Act, which forbids intimidating sitting MPs.




I suppose Oakeshott sees Thomson's vote no more tainted that his own.



> The Tasmanian MP (Wilkie) also backed calls for a parliamentary committee to examine whether MPs or members of the community had "intimidated" Mr Thomson, which would be a breach of the Crimes Act.




The Independents hatred for the Coalition far exceeds any disquiet they may have over the Thomson affair.

All those MPs who are concerned about Thomson's mental health from Abbott's "harassment" fail to see that the solution is in his hands.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-censure-motion/story-fn59niix-1226363987812


----------



## McLovin (23 May 2012)

Julia said:


> So doesn't the fact that the calls appeared on his phone bill eliminate the possibility of such a transfer of calls?




Sure does.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (23 May 2012)

http://www.news.com.au/national/cra...-named-witnesses/story-e6frfkvr-1226363996981

LOl and now the witnesses he named in Parliament are all "WTH?"

What a sad little liar Thompson is. 

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## sails (23 May 2012)

From a former brothel receptionist:



> In my ten years working on reception in several brothels throughout Melbourne, never once did I accept a credit card payment from a client without validating his identity with either a Driver’s Licence or a passport (for the non-Aussies). Nor do I know of any other receptionist who would take the risk of allowing several hundred dollars to be put on a credit card without covering their back by positively identifying the client first. Who has to pay when a person comes back and says “There’s a charge on my card from a brothel and it wasn’t me”? The receptionist, that’s who!!




Read more from the receptionist: Brothel receptionist tells: why we’d want Thomson’s driver’s licence


----------



## noco (23 May 2012)

sails said:


> From a former brothel receptionist:
> 
> 
> 
> Read more from the receptionist: Brothel receptionist tells: why we’d want Thomson’s driver’s licence




Well on that statement, if he has lied to parliament it will all come out.

This guy is an absolute fool to say the least.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (23 May 2012)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> http://www.news.com.au/national/cra...-named-witnesses/story-e6frfkvr-1226363996981
> 
> LOl and now the witnesses he named in Parliament are all "WTH?"
> 
> ...




This is now a very BIG problem for the Labor-dominated Privileges Committee, to which the whole Parliament (Labor included) has sent this thing to in order to examine Thomson's statement from start to finish.

Even the Laborites on the Committee can tell an obvious lie when they see one, and there are now many people crawling out to expose the lies.

Even a little lie is enough for the PC to say he has misled Parliament, normally a sacking offence.  I can't imagine the Labor members saying "Oh yes, it was a lie, but only a little one, so we'll let him hang on for a little while more."

Well, maybe I can, but they would look incredibly stupid (I suppose that's not stopped them in the past).


----------



## stacks (23 May 2012)

With the media going nuts, the opposition like a dog with a bone, the independants having their two cents, and labour just failing throughout this whole episode, this issue is completely disrupting parliament and the running of this country. Its all an ugly mess and the fact that that this is the main topic at the moment, is frankly, an embarassment to our parliament, given the economic challenges presenting themselves here and overseas. 

The issue has been handled shockingly, and considering it happened so long ago it baffles me that this is how it has played out.


----------



## dutchie (23 May 2012)

stacks said:


> With the media going nuts, the opposition like a dog with a bone, the independants having their two cents, and labour just failing throughout this whole episode, this issue is completely disrupting parliament and the running of this country. Its all an ugly mess and the fact that that this is the main topic at the moment, is frankly, an embarassment to our parliament, given the economic challenges presenting themselves here and overseas.
> 
> The issue has been handled shockingly, and considering it happened so long ago it baffles me that this is how it has played out.




Agree.
Mostly due to Gillards' desire to stay in power no matter what it costs Australia.


----------



## stacks (23 May 2012)

dutchie said:


> Agree.
> Mostly due to Gillards' desire to stay in power no matter what it costs Australia.




Yep that, plus....

The oppositions desire to gain power no matter what it costs Australia.

The independants desire to stay in power no matter what it costs Australia.


----------



## Calliope (23 May 2012)

dutchie said:


> Agree.
> Mostly due to Gillards' desire to stay in power no matter what it costs Australia.




 Richard Nixon had the same desire although the guilt was obvious to everyone. Thomson will be her Watergate. But she will have to be dragged from Office kicking and screaming.

Nixon knew when he had to go;  

"I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is opposed to every instinct in my body. But as president I must put the interests of America first Therefore, I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow."


----------



## dutchie (23 May 2012)

stacks said:


> Yep that, plus....
> 
> The oppositions desire to gain power no matter what it costs Australia.
> 
> The independants desire to stay in power no matter what it costs Australia.




The difference is that Labor and/or the independents can make something happen now!

The opposition can't.


----------



## joea (23 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Nixon knew when he had to go;
> 
> "I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is opposed to every instinct in my body. But as president I must put the interests of America first Therefore, I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow."




Julia knows when to go too. That's never ,"because she would be doing the right thing for Australia"...err" she would be doing the right thing for the Australian people". and so on for another two sentences at least.
joea


----------



## rumpole (23 May 2012)

stacks said:


> Yep that, plus....
> 
> The oppositions desire to gain power no matter what it costs Australia.
> 
> The independants desire to stay in power no matter what it costs Australia.




Tony Abbott's desire to do anything to be PM.


----------



## joea (23 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Tony Abbott's desire to do anything to be PM.




Actually did we not witness Bill Kelty sum it all up last week, when he said the opposition was doing its job.
I thought he spoke well!
joea


----------



## Calliope (23 May 2012)

joea said:


> Actually did we not witness Bill Kelty sum it all up last week, when he said the opposition was doing its job.
> I thought he spoke well!
> joea




When Thomson rubbished Abbott in his  diatribe he was obviously looking for support from the Abbott haters, who are nearly as numerous as the Gillard haters. I think his ploy worked.


----------



## MrBurns (23 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Tony Abbott's desire to do anything to be PM.




However unlike Gillard he hasn't blown $ billions in surplus to protect his own position.


----------



## MrBurns (23 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> When Thomson rubbished Abbott in his  diatribe he was obviously looking for support from the Abbott haters, who are nearly as numerous as the Gillard haters. I think his ploy worked.




I doubt it, I'll see your few Abbott haters and raise you 20,000,000 (approx) Gillard and Thompson haters.

Give in ?


----------



## rumpole (23 May 2012)

joea said:


> Actually did we not witness Bill Kelty sum it all up last week, when he said the opposition was doing its job.
> I thought he spoke well!
> joea




In that case, you can't blame Labor for doing whatever it can to stay in government

:


----------



## MrBurns (23 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> In that case, you can't blame Labor for doing whatever it can to stay in government
> 
> :




Nope not the same, now if Abbott was shielding a criminal your comparison might be valid but he isnt.


----------



## rumpole (23 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Nope not the same, now if Abbott was shielding a criminal your comparison might be valid but he isnt.




A criminal is someone convicted in a court of law.

Thomson hasn't been, yet.


----------



## joea (23 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> In that case, you can't blame Labor for doing whatever it can to stay in government
> 
> :




I give up!!
joea


----------



## MrBurns (23 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> A criminal is someone convicted in a court of law.
> 
> Thomson hasn't been, yet.




Sorry I was talking in the future tense.:


----------



## sails (23 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> A criminal is someone convicted in a court of law.
> 
> Thomson hasn't been, yet.





lol Rumpole, Mr Burns could have put it this way:

"Nope not the same, now if Abbott was shielding an MP with similar allegations as Thomson, your comparison might be valid but he isnt."​Hmmm...  how will you try to skirt around that one...


----------



## Calliope (23 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> A criminal is someone convicted in a court of law.
> 
> Thomson hasn't been, yet.




Wrong again. A criminal is someone who commits a crime.


----------



## Julia (23 May 2012)

joea said:


> Actually did we not witness Bill Kelty sum it all up last week, when he said the opposition was doing its job.
> I thought he spoke well!
> joea



+1.  Refreshing to hear some objectivity from a Labor heavyweight.



rumpole said:


> In that case, you can't blame Labor for doing whatever it can to stay in government
> 
> :



What?  This in response to Mr Kelty's remarks and joea's comment?  Did you actually listen to Mr Kelty's remarks?  If you had, you wouldn't be making such a silly comment as above.


----------



## rumpole (24 May 2012)

Julia said:


> +1.  Refreshing to hear some objectivity from a Labor heavyweight.
> 
> 
> What?  This in response to Mr Kelty's remarks and joea's comment?  Did you actually listen to Mr Kelty's remarks?  If you had, you wouldn't be making such a silly comment as above.




As I heard it Kelty said "you can't blame the opposition for trying to beat you" . That's fair enough. 

The converse of that is "you can't blame the government for trying not to be beaten" . If someone in the Liberal party have the same objectivity as Kelty they would use the same arguments as he did. 

That's not a silly statement, it's political reality whether you like it or not. It's a pity some people don't have the objectivity to see the other side of the argument.


----------



## stacks (24 May 2012)

I pose this to you good folks: Do the people at the top of political parties these days really have an opinion about whats good for the country that they are willing to commit to? Do they really think about whats best for our country and our way of life? Are the majority values more important than marginal polling seats?

 If for example labour comes up with a good bit of policy, do the opposition ever  sit back and go hoorah! nice job? 

Or if the opposition come up with a good idea, do the government ever say, yes, top suggestion, we will adopt that?

NO NEVER! its a grubby game, politics in this country, where individual or party ambition has trumped whats best for the country. As much as we would like to believe otherwise, politics is about the people in power, not about the people who put them there,

I am a young voter and probably more of a cynic than I should be, but I think my views are sometimes representative of my demographic.
I think, regardless of what they say around election time,  buried well down the list of real priorities of MP's of both parties, is the betterment of the country as a whole. Far beneath their priority of self election.

Off topic rant I know and I apologize for the cyncicism, but the whole political landscape and the vacuum of a legitimate vision for the future of my country, from either side, really concerns me.


----------



## rumpole (24 May 2012)

stacks said:


> Off topic rant I know and I apologize for the cyncicism, but the whole political landscape and the vacuum of a legitimate vision for the future of my country, from either side, really concerns me.




Actually, behind the muckraking of both sides of the fence, most of the legislation that goes before the Parliament is agreed by both sides plus the independents, the media usually only report the differences not the agreements.

 The things that don't get agreements though are the "marquee" legislations, like the mining tax, carbon tax and pokie reforms. It usually comes down to a matter of ideology, not the good of the country that controls whether the opposition supports or opposes these reforms.


----------



## joea (24 May 2012)

stacks said:


> Off topic rant I know and I apologize for the cyncicism, but the whole political landscape and the vacuum of a legitimate vision for the future of my country, from either side, really concerns me.




Stacks
The political landscape, is the one provided for you by the media. Is that not correct.?
One political point you should be concerned about is how the Craig Thompson affair is being handled by a minority government.
The legitimate vision for our country MUST be based on integrity and the Australian constitution.
The problem can be resolved by an election. The current government is in power because of false promises. That is the "one and only problem".

One now has to accept that the Australian voter had got it wrong. So it is the Australian voter who must be given the opportunity to correct it.

At the next election the voter has to simply put the country first, and not the articles from the media.
joea


----------



## MrBurns (24 May 2012)

joea said:


> Stacks
> At the next election the voter has to simply put the country first, and not the articles from the media.
> joea




Unless there's something extraordinary happening such as Gillard being obviously unworthy, the media dictate public opinion, they have such control through TV and print that they can actually determine the result of an election...therefore..... politicians play to the media more than us, a particularly and embarrassingly obvious example is Gillard with slow talking dumbed down clichÃ©s and spin.


----------



## rumpole (24 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Unless there's something extraordinary happening such as Gillard being obviously unworthy, the media dictate public opinion, they have such control through TV and print that they can actually determine the result of an election...therefore..... politicians play to the media more than us, a particularly and embarrassingly obvious example is Gillard with slow talking dumbed down clichÃ©s and spin.




Virtually every politician I've ever seen talks spin, I wouldn't single out any individual.

As to the media, they certainly can influence public opinion, by editorials or by turning the loudspeaker up or down whenever they like, and choosing who they want to interview or not. Sometimes though, if it's clear that the public is not towing the line by supporting the media's chosen side, they then switch sides and pretend they won the election for the winners. A complete lack of scruples by certain media organisations.


----------



## MrBurns (24 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Virtually every politician I've ever seen talks spin, I wouldn't single out any individual.
> .




Oh I would, Gillard is the worst example I've ever seen, she talks down to the public, *talks down*, she has no idea, as they say she just doesnt get it, or if she does she has absolutely no respect for the people she represents, broken promises and no appologies.

Why do you think she's so universally hated ? and don't kid yourself she is.


----------



## rumpole (24 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Oh I would, Gillard is the worst example I've ever seen, she talks down to the public, *talks down*, she has no idea, as they say she just doesnt get it, or if she does she has absolutely no respect for the people she represents, broken promises and no appologies.
> 
> Why do you think she's so universally hated ? and don't kid yourself she is.




Gillard obviously fills you with revulsion, Abbott does the same to me. Saying one thing on TV , then saying we shouldn't believe what he says on TV, but only his carefully considered viewpoints put in writing. Do me a favour.


----------



## MrBurns (24 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Gillard obviously fills you with revulsion, Abbott does the same to me. Saying one thing on TV , then saying we shouldn't believe what he says on TV, but only his carefully considered viewpoints put in writing. Do me a favour.




It's no contest Rumpy, Gillard has not only lied through her teeth she has now corrupted the integrity of the Parliamant and the office of PM by shielding a man who has serious moral and corruption *FINDINGS* against him to protect her own hated regime.
She bypasses the chance to do the right thing, a concept unknown to her, to protect Thompson, a sleeze and everyone knows it.
She has damaged all that we hold good and is unworthy not only to be PM but to be an MP, words you might recall.


----------



## stacks (24 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> The things that don't get agreements though are the "marquee" legislations, like the mining tax, carbon tax and pokie reforms. It usually comes down to a matter of ideology, not the good of the country that controls whether the opposition supports or opposes these reforms.



Disagree. The government has shown time and again they are quite willing to set aside their ideology, and not for the good of the country, but to stay in power.


----------



## rumpole (24 May 2012)

stacks said:


> Disagree. The government has shown time and again they are quite willing to set aside their ideology, and not for the good of the country, but to stay in power.




Examples ? Please separate political motives from ideology.


----------



## joea (24 May 2012)

stacks said:


> If for example labour comes up with a good bit of policy, do the opposition ever  sit back and go hoorah! nice job?
> 
> Or if the opposition come up with a good idea, do the government ever say, yes, top suggestion, we will adopt that?




Stacks 
I have chosen to answer this very good post with more than one answer.
My question to you is, If you are employed by another person or a company, has your immediate supervisor or your boss ever said, "You are doing a good job"?

When both party's in government agree on something, it is passed through both houses without fanfare.
Because only "bad news sell", the good things in politics are not picked up by the media.

example... The day Kevin Rudd was elected as PM, sky news political journalists admitted at 5.30 am(on that day), that it appeared that Rudd would be elected without one complete or major policy. It was all spin. (that is why he had such a slow start.)

Prior to that it was not mentioned once. In this case reporting the news was becoming stale with the Howard government.

To sum up, the media are having a ball with this petty politics. They had their day in the sun, and the voter was given a second opportunity to resolve the problem.
The voters faltered, and are now in the hands of the media.

"A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go but where they ought to be."
Rosalyn Carter (1927 -)
Now you will see many posts on this forum that do not support Gillard, but say they do not like Abbott. That section of the voter was ambushed by the media, in 2007, bent with spin by Gillard in 2010, and will soon have to stand up for "either their country or their ego's". 
I await with anticipation.
Joea


----------



## dutchie (24 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> It's no contest Rumpy, Gillard has not only lied through her teeth she has now corrupted the integrity of the Parliamant and the office of PM by shielding a man who has serious moral and corruption *FINDINGS* against him to protect her own hated regime.
> She bypasses the chance to do the right thing, a concept unknown to her, to protect Thompson, a sleeze and everyone knows it.
> She has damaged all that we hold good and is unworthy not only to be PM but to be an MP, words you might recall.




Well put Burnsie.

Gillard is in a rogues league of her own


----------



## waza1960 (24 May 2012)

Getting the thread back to the Original topic: more intrigue/gossip /rumour /yadda yadda



> Federal MP Craig Thomson says he's been told the Nine Network's A Current Affair is planning to air an interview with a prostitute who claims he was a client.
> 
> Mr Thomson says the producer of ACA spent 90 minutes in his parliamentary office yesterday to seek his response to the claims from the anonymous prostitute.
> 
> ...




  I suppose this development was inevitable if the allegations are true


----------



## rumpole (24 May 2012)

> Gillard has not only lied through her teeth she has now corrupted the integrity of the Parliamant and the office of PM by shielding a man who has serious moral and corruption FINDINGS against him to protect her own hated regime.




And just how is Gillard shielding Thomson ? She suspended him from the Labor party. He's on his own. She can't force him to resign from Parliament or stop him from voting.

 The stuff about not accepting his vote would disenfranchise his electorate and is a farce as Hockey showed by saying he would accept Thomsons vote. FWA is taking Thomson to court, the NSW police could charge him and the Privileges Committee could censure him as well

 Due process must take place


----------



## basilio (24 May 2012)

Due process Rumpole?  

Since when have we lived in a parliamentary democracy under the rule of law ?  I thought we had given up on those old fashioned ideas and agreed that public opinion polls in the Hun were the best way of deciding guilt or innocence.

Not to mention the outraged cries of ( *very *self interested) politicians.

The  hounding of Craig Thomson is a partisan political vendetta that opens the way for any person  or politician to be tried, convicted and lynched. It is not justice just opportunism.


----------



## rumpole (24 May 2012)

basilio said:


> Due process Rumpole?
> 
> Since when have we lived in a parliamentary democracy under the rule of law ?  I thought we had given up on those old fashioned ideas and agreed that public opinion polls in the Hun were the best way of deciding guilt or innocence.
> 
> ...




Good points


----------



## McLovin (24 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> And just how is Gillard shielding Thomson ? She suspended him from the Labor party. He's on his own. She can't force him to resign from Parliament or stop him from voting.




I agree. 

How do you not accept an MP's vote anyway?


----------



## MrBurns (24 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> And just how is Gillard shielding Thomson ? She suspended him from the Labor party. He's on his own. She can't force him to resign from Parliament or stop him from voting.
> Due process must take place




She gives him moral support by critising the opposition for going after him, she is immoral in this act and everyone knows it.


----------



## joea (24 May 2012)

I cannot add a link from the Australian, however!!
In an article "Why Thompson may exit the limelight", Gary Johns writes the following..

Thompson entered the parliament at the 2007 election and is not covered by the old school. A early exit will deny him an income of $185,000 a year , not including allowances.
Slipper on the other hand will be covered barring adverse legal findings.
...
The parliament is not having a problem - two members and one government are.

and the above few words sums up the fiasco.
joea


----------



## MrBurns (24 May 2012)

joea said:


> Thompson entered the parliament at the 2007 election and is not covered by the old school. A early exit will deny him an income of $185,000 a year , not including allowances.
> joea




Well that would bring one to tears wouldn't it.

In the meantime a prostitute has signed a stat dec and will appear on This Day Tonight to tell how Thompson was a client of hers.
Good to see an honest person get a say.


----------



## Julia (24 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Well that would bring one to tears wouldn't it.
> 
> In the meantime a prostitute has signed a stat dec and will appear on This Day Tonight to tell how Thompson was a client of hers.
> Good to see an honest person get a say.




How fascinating.  Do we know when the interview will be broadcast?
Mr Thomson is clearly rattled about this going by his anxious and angry tone on today's "The World Today".


----------



## Julia (24 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> The things that don't get agreements though are the "marquee" legislations, like the mining tax, carbon tax and pokie reforms. It usually comes down to a matter of ideology, not the good of the country that controls whether the opposition supports or opposes these reforms.



l disagreee.  Much policy is contrived for political expediency rather than genuine ideology.  Gillard had rejected the ETS or a carbon tax, talked Rudd out of it in fact, but then, whacko, we have a carbon tax.  Not because she remotely believes it's good for Australia but purely because that was the price put on the Greens' support.

Ditto pokies reform.  She needed (at that time) Andrew Wilkie's vote.  So suddenly she became convinced about the evils of pokies.  Helluva sudden conversion.

So to suggest that this government is acting out of ideological conviction is to attribute to them a moral decency that they simply don't have.
Perhaps try to replace some of your instinctive devotion to Labor with a little reality.


----------



## MrBurns (24 May 2012)

Julia said:


> How fascinating.  Do we know when the interview will be broadcast?
> Mr Thomson is clearly rattled about this going by his anxious and angry tone on today's "The World Today".




It may not be straight away, a lot of legal bits to get through no doubt but it shouldn't be too long, strike while the iron's hot as they say.
Be good if she could identify a birthmark or perhaps I just watch too many TV dramas


----------



## Calliope (24 May 2012)

basilio said:


> Due process Rumpole?
> 
> Since when have we lived in a parliamentary democracy under the rule of law ?  I thought we had given up on those old fashioned ideas and agreed that public opinion polls in the Hun were the best way of deciding guilt or innocence.
> 
> ...




Bravo basilio!  I wondered when you would come to the defence of Thomson. Poor old rumpole has had to carry the load on his own. You yourself have been on a "partisan political vendetta" against AGW sceptics for some time. Opportunism?


----------



## StumpyPhantom (24 May 2012)

Julia said:


> How fascinating.  Do we know when the interview will be broadcast?
> Mr Thomson is clearly rattled about this going by his anxious and angry tone on today's "The World Today".




That's hysterical - I just heard Craig Thomson on the radio news, apparently severely criticising the media saying: "This person is being paid 10 times more than what was spent on this 'item' by credit card."

Ah yep - the greatest irony here is that Craig is going to make an honest woman out of her


----------



## Miss Hale (24 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> That's hysterical - I just heard Craig Thomson on the radio news, apparently severely criticising the media saying: "This person is being paid 10 times more than what was spent on this 'item' by credit card."
> 
> Ah yep - the greatest irony here is that Craig is going to make an honest woman out of her




Yes, I heard a soundbite from him saying enough is enough and talking about being pushed to the brink.  When he re-ignited the whole thing with his statement the other day he can hardly complain when others run with what he said and try to verify his assertions - what did he think would happen?  Now that he's had his say he wants to stop all discussion of it


----------



## McLovin (24 May 2012)

If I was Craig Thomson, I'd resign. If for nothing else than for my family.

What does he get out of this, absolutley nothing.


----------



## Miss Hale (24 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> If I was Craig Thomson, I'd resign. If for nothing else than for my family.
> 
> What does he get out of this, absolutley nothing.




I would too but I suppose the Labor party won't let him as they need his vote (despite what they are saying publically and their dis-endoresement of him), he won't let them down because he needs their money to pay his legal bills.


----------



## awg (24 May 2012)

Even though just the one ho word on her own is technically not worth spit, you can just sense its going to be grisly for Thompson if this goes to air. 

Might just bring out the gold-diggers. Tiger Woods style

Come to think about it, with all those parliamentary fellows away from their wives, staying in hotel rooms, I suspect their would be many a girl with tales to tell 

I suspect there would be some division about what is happening, as to me they (the Opposition) have adopted a considered strategy to break the individual, and if the media have been doing thourough investigative work, they most likely have a big dirt file on more than just Thompson


----------



## MrBurns (24 May 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Yes, I heard a soundbite from him saying enough is enough and talking about being pushed to the brink.




He might fake a collapse or suicide attempt, he's painted himself into a corner and there's no way out. "pushed to the brink" means it's on his mind.


----------



## rumpole (24 May 2012)

> So to suggest that this government is acting out of ideological conviction is to attribute to them a moral decency that they simply don't have.
> Perhaps try to replace some of your instinctive devotion to Labor with a little reality.




I was commenting on the Opposition, not the government.

BOTH parties are hypocrites, I have no problem saying that. A lot of people here  jump at the chance to criticise Labor, but don't take the opportunity to hit the other side for political expediency, like when they deny tax cuts to business or introduce politically attractive but stupid socialist money wasters like baby bonuses or parental leave paid for by business.


----------



## Calliope (24 May 2012)

Today's quote from stand-up comedian, Craig Thomson;

"To buy a story from a prostitute is chequebook journalism at its worst. Who is going to take this seriously when they pay a prostitute money?"


----------



## StumpyPhantom (24 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Today's quote from stand-up comedian, Craig Thomson;
> 
> "To buy a story from a prostitute is chequebook journalism at its worst. Who is going to take this seriously when they pay a prostitute money?"




Tsk Tsk - Yes it's a real waste giving money to hookers, isn't it?

Especially when it's not your money in the first place.


----------



## rumpole (24 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> Tsk Tsk - Yes it's a real waste giving money to hookers, isn't it?
> 
> Especially when it's not your money in the first place.




I'm starting to think he may be arrogant enough to claim it as a tax deductible business expense.


----------



## Julia (24 May 2012)

McLovin said:


> If I was Craig Thomson, I'd resign. If for nothing else than for my family.
> 
> What does he get out of this, absolutley nothing.






Miss Hale said:


> I would too but I suppose the Labor party won't let him as they need his vote (despite what they are saying publically and their dis-endoresement of him), he won't let them down because he needs their money to pay his legal bills.



Hasn't the Labor Party said they are no longer paying his legal bills?  (I might be wrong about that.)

I'd be resigning if I were Thomson.  If he's weeping about the strain on his poor pregnant wife whom he says was having to shower while the media were outside the window, his home life is going to be a lot more shattered if some hooker comes on TV with salacious details of his sexual activities.

Imo he and the Labor Party owe each other nothing.  They have both behaved appallingly.  At this stage, I reckon they're both going for whatever they believe most promotes their own survival.
Too late for the electorate now though.  I could never have imagined such a level of public disgust, not just toward Thomson, but toward both sides of politics for their naked political lust.



MrBurns said:


> He might fake a collapse or suicide attempt, he's painted himself into a corner and there's no way out. "pushed to the brink" means it's on his mind.



Or perhaps he's trying this as a last ditch attempt to stop the television interview with the hooker.  i.e. appealing to fears that this could be his last straw.

Maybe should have thought about all that before you so misused the funds of some of the lowest paid workers in the country, Craig.


----------



## MrBurns (24 May 2012)

The more I think of it the more I think he's paved an escape route, either a faked breakdown or an attempt at self harm, I think the breakdown is more likely, he can then withdraw from the spotlight and have a legitimate reason to stall investigations.

We'll see soon enough.


----------



## Caveman (24 May 2012)

Perhaps he should have just given her a Pearl Necklace in payment instead of using the credit card.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (24 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> The more I think of it the more I think he's paved an escape route, either a faked breakdown or an attempt at self harm, I think the breakdown is more likely, he can then withdraw from the spotlight and have a legitimate reason to stall investigations.
> 
> We'll see soon enough.




I have no doubt that this [breakdown] is his latest piece of contrivance.  The whole thing about this self harm issue, from any one who's had any direct experience of it, is that it's all so unexpected.

You don't go about telegraphing it on national television.


----------



## MrBurns (24 May 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> I have no doubt that this [breakdown] is his latest piece of contrivance.  The whole thing about this self harm issue, from any one who's had any direct experience of it, is that it's all so unexpected.
> 
> You don't go about telegraphing it on national television.




If he does have a breakdown or fakes it no one will believe it anyway.


----------



## banco (24 May 2012)

awg said:


> Even though just the one ho word on her own is technically not worth spit, you can just sense its going to be grisly for Thompson if this goes to air.




Your average ACA viewer might be an idiot but the lawyers at nine aren't idiots.  It won't be going to air unless there is some evidence to back it up beyond the hooker's word.


----------



## MrBurns (25 May 2012)

Funny how this whole thing has been  manipulated around so that everyone is now supposed to feel sorry for Thompson. 
Who else in his position would get public sympathy ?


----------



## rumpole (25 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Funny how this whole thing has been  manipulated around so that everyone is now supposed to feel sorry for Thompson.
> Who else in his position would get public sympathy ?




I wouldn't say it's sympathy for him, just a respect for natural justice perhaps, as carried out by due processes of law.


----------



## MrBurns (25 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I wouldn't say it's sympathy for him, just a respect for natural justice perhaps, as carried out by due processes of law.




I have never seen the media or anyone back off from anyone like they're expected to do now. I think it's all misplaced. Thompson himself is fueling this and he's sleezy enough to play on it and use it to his own advantage, watch this space for a "breakdown".


----------



## rumpole (25 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I have never seen the media or anyone back off from anyone like they're expected to do now. I think it's all misplaced. Thompson himself is fueling this and he's sleezy enough to play on it and use it to his own advantage, watch this space for a "breakdown".




Burnsy, if he is to get his just deserts, it would be better if the media does back off, otherwise he could argue that the excessive publicity and hounding of him means he can't get a fair trial and he could get off.


----------



## MrBurns (25 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Burnsy, if he is to get his just deserts, it would be better if the media does back off, otherwise he could argue that the excessive publicity and hounding of him means he can't get a fair trial and he could get off.




Don't think so, all the main evidence is in, and I cant see the media backing off, quite the contrary.


----------



## joea (25 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I have never seen the media or anyone back off from anyone like they're expected to do now. I think it's all misplaced. Thompson himself is fueling this and he's sleezy enough to play on it and use it to his own advantage, watch this space for a "breakdown".




Is he using it to his advantage, or is Gillard using it to Labor's advantage to hopefully deface Abbott through the pursuit of Thompson.

I have put a link on the other thread. 'Whose pulling the strings?"
joea


----------



## Calliope (25 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Don't think so, all the main evidence is in, and I cant see the media backing off, quite the contrary.




It is becoming obvious that Thomson revels in the spotlight. This guy won't break down. He is as tough as Chopper Read and just as big a liar. I can see publishers lining up for his memoirs.

 In the meantime it is a big distraction in Parliament. That is a plus. The less governing this government does, the better.


----------



## noco (25 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> I wouldn't say it's sympathy for him, just a respect for natural justice perhaps, as carried out by due processes of law.




Yes, and the longer it takes the more Gillard likes it to help her stay in power.

I have no sympathy for Thomson what so ever. It is all of his own making. He thought he could get away with spending the HSU members money and he has been caught out.


----------



## sails (25 May 2012)

An article on the ACA investigation:  Escort's claims could sink MP Craig Thomson 

In the article is says:



> The woman has been taken to an overseas location after Channel 9's A Current Affair offered her $60,000 to speak about her alleged encounters with the Dobell MP.




Pretty sad that, in this once free country, someone sees the need to be taken overseas for protection for telling their side of the story.  How any fairdinkum Aussie canr stick up for this sort of behaviour is beyond me.  Kathy Jackson with a shovel outside her door?  This is not the Australia I have known.

And this poll from the same article above:


> Do you believe Craig Thomson?
> 
> Yes 5.19% (1,572 votes)
> * No 94.81%* (28,734 votes)


----------



## rumpole (25 May 2012)

sails said:


> An article on the ACA investigation:  Escort's claims could sink MP Craig Thomson
> 
> In the article is says:
> 
> ...




Who says its for her protection ? Channel 9 may just be giving her an overseas holiday as a reward. Or maybe to keep her out of the media spotlight.


----------



## rumpole (25 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Who says its for her protection ? Channel 9 may just be giving her an overseas holiday as a reward. Or maybe to keep her out of the media spotlight.




Or to stop the other networks offering her more money.


----------



## Calliope (25 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Or to stop the other networks offering her more money.




Thompson is cranky with Channel 9 for paying a former prostitute more money for one session that he paid for several sessions with his credit card. I think the $60,000 bait will bring more ex-pros out of the woodwork.


----------



## rumpole (25 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Thompson is cranky with Channel 9 for paying a former prostitute more money for one session that he paid for several sessions with his credit card. I think the $60,000 bait will bring more ex-pros out of the woodwork.




Indeed it might. And there may be pollies on both sides worried about that


----------



## Calliope (25 May 2012)

A media tart.


----------



## joea (25 May 2012)

They say "what goes around, comes around".

An article in Australian, "Who was presumed Innocent when Windsor pursued Anderson", in 2004?

In this case Latham, Albanese and Gillard all demanded Anderson to answer charges from Windsor, all before the police inquiry was finished.
In this case the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions found there was no prima facie case for charges to be laid.
Windsor was pressured to apologies to parliament.
joea


----------



## noco (27 May 2012)

Where is Thommo in the last 72 hours?

Me thinks Labor have created a media diversion with all the talk of skilled immigrants coming in.

History repeatig itself again with Labor. At least it has given poor old Craig a break over the weekend.


----------



## Calliope (28 May 2012)

Which is the real Julia - the Thomson Julia ir the Santoro Julia?

*The boomerang mud the PM hurled at Santoro has come back to slap her in the face *

*Julia Gillard with Peter Fitzsimons and Mike Carlton on 2UE, March 14, 2007*

HOST: But you are slinging some mud yourself at the moment. Senator Santoro and his $6000 share profit; he says he had forgotten about the share deal. When he discovered it, he did the right thing, gave the $6000 profit to charity: fine, all done. Why should you go after him on that? He has fessed up; he has done the decent thing.

Gillard: We have got just a very simple case here. The prime minister has got this thing called the ministerial code of conduct. Well, if he is going to have it, he has to enforce it and Senator Santoro didn't abide by it . . .

Host: The prime minister is saying, look, let's be common sense about this. It didn't affect any government decision, no one lost any money by it, the senator fessed up as soon as he found out what he had done and cleared the loot. Aren't you being too hard?

Gillard: Shouldn't he amend his code of conduct to say it doesn't matter if you don't disclose as long as, once it is in the newspaper, then you start fixing it up.

Host: So should he sack Senator Santoro?

Gillard: Look, that is a matter for John Howard . . . but I think Australians will be getting a wry smile at the irony that . . . this senator doesn't look like he is going to pay a price at all.

*Sunday, Nine, March 18, 2007:*

LAURIE Oakes: Well, Santo Santoro we've heard resigned on Friday. . . Do you think this is helping the Labor Party, the ragged look that the government now has?

Gillard: I certainly think it's hurting the government. Voters are looking at the government, and I think they are increasingly concluding it's stale, it is old, it's tired, its best days are behind it, and there's a raggedness and loss of control, and that squarely lies at the feet of the prime minister. He's the bloke who is supposed to be in charge.

Oakes: Is there any merit in the idea of some sort of independent authority administering the ministerial code of conduct rather than leaving it to the prime minister?

Gillard: I'm open to ideas, Laurie, but I think the question is only being raised because the prime minister has lost control. If we had a prime minister who was there day after day, strictly enforcing the ministerial code of conduct, brooking no breaches, dealing with it toughly, dealing with it competently, dealing with it quickly, then I don't think anybody would be speculating about the need for an independent body . . .

Oakes: Does Senator Santoro's resignation from the ministry end that matter?

Gillard: It doesn't end the matter in the sense I think Senator Santoro still has some explaining to do. . . .

Oakes: The issue of mud-slinging is something that you've taken a lead in over the last week, attacking the government over it. But both sides do that don't they?

Gillard: I think the Howard government invented a new political commodity, Laurie. It's called boomerang mud; it's the kind of mud you chuck and that it whirls around and just comes back and hits you in the face.

*AM March 21, 2007*:

SANTO Santoro: I stand here tonight with a heavy heart to address an institution that I hold most dear. My omissions, which are the products purely of poor attention to compliance, have let down the government, my party, and the reputation of the Senate. Consequently, Mr deputy president, I wish to unreservedly apologise to the Senate. I hope my colleagues here will come to recognise this episode as a tragic blemish on an otherwise careful and committed parliamentary career, during which I have held both the parliaments in which I have served, and the public interest which they represent, in the highest esteem.

Kirk: Describing his resignation as "so difficult" and "so necessary", Santo Santoro says he never had a conflict of interest, never acted dishonestly or with deceit. . . . Labor pushed the secret share saga hard. . . deputy opposition leader Julia Gillard . . . insists it's not the end of the matter.

Gillard: The buck does stop with the prime minister, he hasn't taken sufficient steps to enforce his ministerial code, and there appear to be further questions to be answered.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-her-in-the-face/story-fn72xczz-1226368671885


----------



## noco (28 May 2012)

The Senate Priviligeges Committee today revealed Thompson has misled parliament last Monday.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-of-interference/story-fndsip4d-1226369207604


----------



## Julia (28 May 2012)

Noco, the article is only available to subscribers, except for the first couple of lines which just seem to contain a denial by Mr Lawler that he had any influence.

Did the rest of the article say anything of greater significance?  Can you perhaps copy and paste?


----------



## Calliope (28 May 2012)

noco said:


> The Senate Priviligeges Committee today revealed Thompson has misled parliament last Monday.




The article doesn't say that. There was no comment from the PC.


----------



## rumpole (28 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> The article doesn't say that. There was no comment from the PC.




He may have meant the Senate Estimates Committee.

Officials of the FWA said they were not aware of any evidence that Kathy Jackson's partner (the Deputy Head of FWA) had interfered in the FWA investigation of Thomsom.


----------



## Julia (28 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> The article doesn't say that. There was no comment from the PC.



 Thanks, Calliope.  Mr Lawler - and Kathy Jackson - had already vehemently denied any involvement.


----------



## joea (28 May 2012)

From the ABC.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-28/fair-work-rejects-interference-claim/4037278

joea


----------



## joea (28 May 2012)

SMH

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/new-thomson-evidence-raised-abetz-20120528-1zefc.html

joea


----------



## bellenuit (28 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Noco, the article is only available to subscribers, except for the first couple of lines which just seem to contain a denial by Mr Lawler that he had any influence.
> 
> Did the rest of the article say anything of greater significance?  Can you perhaps copy and paste?




Julia, 

It might be worth taking out a free trial subscription. I took out the 1 month free trial subscription when they first put the online version behind a firewall. I was travelling to Vietnam at the time and it was excellent to be able to access pretty much all of the stuff that was on the printed version.  Two months ago I was heading to Bali and applied again for a free month's trial subscription. It was given without any problems, even though I ticked the box to say I had previously subscribed for free and used the same userid. When that expired I applied again, thinking it would be rejected. Again it was given and I have a few weeks left on it. 

I suspect they are not getting the amount of customers they anticipated and are willing to keep enticing those that have showed an interest in the hopes they will eventually get them to opt for a paid subscription.

Personally I wouldn't bother paying as I normally prefer to read The Australian when I am out for a coffee and I use the cafe's copy. I could also survive without it when overseas as there are free alternatives such as the Sydney Morning Herald.


----------



## McLovin (28 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Noco, the article is only available to subscribers, except for the first couple of lines which just seem to contain a denial by Mr Lawler that he had any influence.
> 
> Did the rest of the article say anything of greater significance?  Can you perhaps copy and paste?




Click the first link. It will take you to the article.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Fair+Work+Australia+chief+dismisses+Craig+Thomson%27s+claim+of+interference&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs


----------



## noco (28 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> The article doesn't say that. There was no comment from the PC.




I picked it up from an interview with Eric Abetz on Sky News who claims Thompson has misled Parliament.


----------



## Julia (28 May 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Julia,
> 
> It might be worth taking out a free trial subscription. I took out the 1 month free trial subscription when they first put the online version behind a firewall. I was travelling to Vietnam at the time and it was excellent to be able to access pretty much all of the stuff that was on the printed version.  Two months ago I was heading to Bali and applied again for a free month's trial subscription. It was given without any problems, even though I ticked the box to say I had previously subscribed for free and used the same userid. When that expired I applied again, thinking it would be rejected. Again it was given and I have a few weeks left on it.
> 
> ...



Thanks, bellenuit.  I've had the one month free sub.  Attempted to repeat but was rejected.
I actually get "The Australian" hard copy delivered several days per week, so don't particularly want to subscribe as well.  
I'd just appreciate it if people putting up a link to an article don't bother unless others can access the article.  Or surely not too difficult to copy and paste if subscriber only?



McLovin said:


> Click the first link. It will take you to the article.
> 
> https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Fair+Work+Australia+chief+dismisses+Craig+Thomson%27s+claim+of+interference&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs



Thank you, McLovin.  Interview on "7.30" this evening was interesting too, highlighting the completely distinct divisions of FWA.


----------



## Julia (28 May 2012)

Patrick Cook's satirical musings on Craig and other matters.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/patrick-cook/4028210


----------



## awg (29 May 2012)

Perhaps the Fair Work report has become an irrelevancy, but I must admit after watching the "boss" of Fair Work give a lame defence of the organisation, I was shaking my head.

Now I dont know what school of Ethics these Federal Court Judge clowns subscribe to, but if a Delegate is required to investigate a matter that his superior is in a marital-style relationship with someone who is both a central complainant and the subject of complaint, AND Lawler himself had poked his oar into HSU affairs ( as he did), then that in imo, 100% clearly fails the test of A) Direct Conflict. B) Percieved Conflict...jeez, how much worse can it get than that?

It would be my guess that is why the report took so long to complete.
If I was the delegate I would not have felt able to complete such a report without both written directive and legal advice. No wonder he is on "long-term" leave
I can only imagine he was close to retirement

Im unsure how it came to be that took place, but afaic the report is legal junk.
Our taxes pay these clowns


----------



## MrBurns (29 May 2012)

awg said:


> Perhaps the Fair Work report has become an irrelevancy, but I must admit after watching the "boss" of Fair Work give a lame defence of the organisation, I was shaking my head.




It seems that nothing is "a matter for him" makes you wonder what is and why he's even there.


----------



## noco (29 May 2012)

noco said:


> I picked it up from an interview with Eric Abetz on Sky News who claims Thompson has misled Parliament.




To be a good liar, one should have a good memory as the link indicates.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...mail/comments/thomson_contradicted_yet_again/


----------



## joea (30 May 2012)

It's all happening!!!

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...mson-votes-with-coalition-20120530-1zi79.html

joea


----------



## noco (30 May 2012)

joea said:


> It's all happening!!!
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...mson-votes-with-coalition-20120530-1zi79.html
> 
> joea





There is no doubt the Labor Party put Thomson up to it as Tony Abbott stated Labor would want a pair if Thomsom went on sick leave.
Good thinking Tony not to fall into the Labor dodgie trap.


----------



## sails (30 May 2012)

joea said:


> It's all happening!!!
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...mson-votes-with-coalition-20120530-1zi79.html
> 
> joea




And where are the lefties with their taunts that the opposition would accept a vote by Thomson?  

It does look like a set-up though.  It seems like Thomson needs his legal bills paid, so surely he will do whatever he is asked by the labor party.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 May 2012)

Thomson is said to be depressed and there are concerns he may suicide.

His behaviour today would question his morals and decision making in voting with the opposition. He would appear quite happy in reality.

He is a turkey.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (30 May 2012)

Barry Humphries called Thompson a liar on Q&A last night, that seals it as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Julia (30 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Barry Humphries called Thompson a liar on Q&A last night, that seals it as far as I'm concerned.



 Can you tell us why Barry Humphries is necessarily the final arbiter of truth?


----------



## MrBurns (30 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Can you tell us why Barry Humphries is necessarily the final arbiter of truth?




I'm one of his biggest fans, what Barry says is not to be questioned

I'm suprised he got away with it actually.


----------



## Calliope (30 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I'm one of his biggest fans, what Barry says is not to be questioned
> 
> I'm suprised he got away with it actually.




He (she) is gutless. He joined with the other low-lifes on Q&A to make gratuitous insulting remarks about Gina Rinehart. It was a feeding frenzy of left leaning louts spurred on by Tony Jones.  I suppose every one of these hypocrites would say that  Labor's Thomson is entitled to the "presumption of innocence." David Marr is a particularly nasty piece of work.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cut-paste


----------



## MrBurns (31 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> He (she) is gutless. He joined with the other low-lifes on Q&A to make gratuitous insulting remarks about Gina Rinehart. It was a feeding frenzy of left leaning louts spurred on by Tony Jones.  I suppose every one of these hypocrites would say that  Labor's Thomson is entitled to the "presumption of innocence." David Marr is a particularly nasty piece of work.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cut-paste




I agree that the comments against Gina Rinehart are insulting and unwarranted, she operates within Australian law and makes a lot of money , but the tall poppy syndrome is alive and well, disturbingly now among people who should be above that.
If I were Rinehart I would move to Europe where wealth is respected.

As far as Barry Humphries goes I felt he was drawn in and was obliged to participate in that conversation. Barry is a satirist and never to my knowledge has he hit below the belt where it wasn't warranted, and when he hits he hits hard not like the half hearted quip he made on Q&A.


----------



## Julia (31 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> He (she) is gutless. He joined with the other low-lifes on Q&A to make gratuitous insulting remarks about Gina Rinehart. It was a feeding frenzy of left leaning louts spurred on by Tony Jones.  I suppose every one of these hypocrites would say that  Labor's Thomson is entitled to the "presumption of innocence." David Marr is a particularly nasty piece of work.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cut-paste



+1.



MrBurns said:


> As far as Barry Humphries goes I felt he was drawn in and was obliged to participate in that conversation. Barry is a satirist and never to my knowledge has he hit below the belt where it wasn't warranted, and when he hits he hits hard not like the half hearted quip he made on Q&A.



I disagree.  He was under no obligation to 'go with the crowd'.  He was imo ineffectual and boring, not to mention even sycophantic toward his co-panellists.


----------



## MrBurns (31 May 2012)

Julia said:


> +1.
> I disagree.  He was under no obligation to 'go with the crowd'.  He was imo ineffectual and boring, not to mention even sycophantic toward his co-panellists.




You have to understand him to appreciate how he works, I consider him a comic genius but thrust into that setting may not have suited him and he was only there to be Barry Humphries not a commentator.


----------



## Julia (31 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> You have to understand him to appreciate how he works, I consider him a comic genius but thrust into that setting may not have suited him and he was only there to be Barry Humphries not a commentator.




Burnsie, I've always hugely enjoyed his characters so was just disappointed in his shabby performance on Q & A.

Of course he was there as a commentator.  That's what the show is about.  He didn't have to accept the invitation to appear if he wasn't comfortable expressing political or other opinions.


----------



## MrBurns (31 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Of course he was there as a commentator.  That's what the show is about.  He didn't have to accept the invitation to appear if he wasn't comfortable expressing political or other opinions.




I disagree I don't think he's ever done a serious interview and they knew what to expect when they called him in.


----------



## rumpole (31 May 2012)

Re: Q&A with Humphries et al. The show was an almost complete bore. Humphries looked right out of place. He reminded me of Ronnie Barker who said of himself that he had no personality outside the characters he was playing. Humphries gave the same impression. 

The rest of the panel was forgettable also.


----------



## awg (31 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Can you tell us why Barry Humphries is necessarily the final arbiter of truth?




lol..Barry Humphries is closer to his character Les Patterson,
not suggesting you do Julia, but anyone who expects a comedian to be tasteful is even sillier than expecting Shane Warne to be a model citizen cause he is good at cricket


----------



## MrBurns (31 May 2012)

awg said:


> lol..Barry Humphries is closer to his character Les Patterson,
> not suggesting you do Julia, but anyone who expects a comedian to be tasteful is even sillier than expecting Shane Warne to be a model citizen cause he is good at cricket




Humphries is the complete opposite of Sir Les, Sir Les is Anthony Albanese, Craig Thompson, the male version of Gillard, and every Qld polititian rolled into one, he's not really a comic character but an actual replica.


----------



## Macquack (31 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> He (she) is gutless. He joined with the other low-lifes on Q&A to make gratuitous insulting remarks about Gina Rinehart.




You need to have a look in the mirror, Calliope. It is ok for you to demonise and ridicule Julia Gillard, but it is not acceptable for a comedian to have a crack a your beloved Rhinoarse.

If you watched the whole program you would have seen Humphries also taking aim at Julia Gillard.

I thought Barry was thoroughly entertaining as usual.


----------



## awg (31 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Humphries is the complete opposite of Sir Les, Sir Les is Anthony Albanese, Craig Thompson, the male version of Gillard, and every Qld polititian rolled into one, he's not really a comic character but an actual replica.




I have to respectfully and selectivly disagree, one reason I find 'Les Paterson' amusingly ironic, is that it seemed to me Humphries was able to draw upon those aspects of his own personality that were flawed..in his own words he  was a "dissolute, guilt-ridden, self-pitying, boozer" and a womaniser.

Combine this arrogance and rudeness, and you have Les.

I agree that the character is a parody though, and that Humphries is a very intelligent and sophisticated fellow


----------



## Calliope (31 May 2012)

Macquack said:


> You need to have a look in the mirror, Calliope. It is ok for you to demonise and ridicule Julia Gillard, but it is not acceptable for a comedian to have a crack a your beloved Rhinoarse.




You Rinehart critics seem to have an obsession with her ar*e. When your beloved Gillard reaches her age her butt will probably be bigger.


----------



## Julia (31 May 2012)

rumpole said:


> Re: Q&A with Humphries et al. The show was an almost complete bore. Humphries looked right out of place. He reminded me of Ronnie Barker who said of himself that he had no personality outside the characters he was playing. Humphries gave the same impression.
> 
> The rest of the panel was forgettable also.



Agree 100%/



awg said:


> lol..Barry Humphries is closer to his character Les Patterson,
> not suggesting you do Julia, but anyone who expects a comedian to be tasteful is even sillier than expecting Shane Warne to be a model citizen cause he is good at cricket



I wasn't criticising him for not being tasteful so I don't know where you got that from.
I wouldn't have bothered to comment on him at all until Mr Burns suggested his (Humphries') opinion was the last word in correct judgment.  I disagreeed and still do.

I'm all for a bit of tasteless amusement, but he didn't even offer that.
For me, he was just a great disappointment when appearing as his 'real self', after all the years I've so enjoyed his parodied characters.



awg said:


> I have to respectfully and selectivly disagree, one reason I find 'Les Paterson' amusingly ironic, is that it seemed to me Humphries was able to draw upon those aspects of his own personality that were flawed..in his own words he  was a "dissolute, guilt-ridden, self-pitying, boozer" and a womaniser.
> 
> Combine this arrogance and rudeness, and you have Les.
> 
> I agree that the character is a parody though, and that Humphries is a very intelligent and sophisticated fellow



You're probably right.  Just a pity, therefore, that he didn't demonstrate this on a night when the whole panel was better forgotten imo.


----------



## Eager (31 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Thomson is said to be depressed and there are concerns he may suicide.



If he does, in this litigous world could Abbott potentially face a charge of workplace bullying?


----------



## MrBurns (31 May 2012)

Eager said:


> If he does, in this litigous world could Abbott potentially face a charge of workplace bullying?




I guess someone could launch an action against Abbott, and the entire Australian media.


----------



## Eager (31 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I guess someone could launch an action against Abbott, and the entire Australian media.



Just wondering how you would like to see Thomson treated if he was your son, for example.


----------



## MrBurns (31 May 2012)

Eager said:


> Just wondering how you would like to see Thomson treated if he was your son, for example.




I would have no control over how he was treated, but as he is the key to a change of Govt what he does is important, don't play tricks like vote with the opposition, don't have impromptu press conferences, just shut up and probably get out and let Gillard look after herself.


----------



## Julia (31 May 2012)

Eager said:


> Just wondering how you would like to see Thomson treated if he was your son, for example.



 Or alternatively, consider how you'd like to see the low paid members of the HSU treated, with their union subs spent on prostitutes.

I know whom I'd be caring about more.


----------



## Eager (31 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Or alternatively, consider how you'd like to see the low paid members of the HSU treated, with their union subs spent on prostitutes.
> 
> I know whom I'd be caring about more.



The prostitutes???

.
.
.
.
.

(jokes)


----------



## moXJO (31 May 2012)

Eager said:


> Just wondering how you would like to see Thomson treated if he was your son, for example.




I'd kick him up the ar$e for starters


----------



## Calliope (1 June 2012)

Eager said:


> Just wondering how you would like to see Thomson treated if he was your son, for example.




Well Thomson's childish prank put paid to any notion that he is depressed or suicidal from Coalition harassment. He is having a ball.



> Maybe it was Craig Thomson who set them off on the hypocrisy bent, with his stunt as Mr Independent on Wednesday, voting with the opposition to send Tony Abbott and Christopher Pyne sprinting to neutralise his vote.
> 
> Thomson was meant to be licking his wounds, pleading just a week before, Greta Garbo-style, to be left alone - "enough is enough" - and then he guaranteed the spotlight turned back on him to score a political point.
> 
> *Yesterday he was enjoying the show in parliament*, though Liberal MP and general practitioner Mal Washer took the time to do a crossbench consultation, but refused to breach patient confidentiality. Suffice to say,* Thomson was looking pretty chipper.*










http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-hypocritic-oath/story-e6frgd0x-1226377822698


----------



## kincella (2 June 2012)

no relief in sight...they have shut down all debate on thomson.....since the word suicide was mentioned...
now everyone is too scared to say anything about him...regardless of any ongoing investigations....not one mp, or even the opinionista's, will now talk about him

what a delicious situation to be in.... half a million in rip offs, lying, etc and you get off scott free...
imagine if all the other crooks out there, screamed I might suicide....would the police and judicial system back off, allow them to go free ????
and the speaker in the house is supposed to play a bipartisan role....
look at her, trolling all the media, saying she feels like hurling abuse herself..she raised the topic of a former mp who suicided, as a warning to all today...to shut up about thomson...
it is truly disgusting
the alp in the majority are disgusting
but some of them did act grownup with the  decision on rhineharts big investment with jobs plan....
but silly gillard destroyed any semblance of making a good decision...and took the alp back to her 'playschool' grade, standard of politics


----------



## rumpole (2 June 2012)

kincella said:


> no relief in sight...they have shut down all debate on thomson.....since the word suicide was mentioned...
> now everyone is too scared to say anything about him...regardless of any ongoing investigations....not one mp, or even the opinionista's, will now talk about him
> 
> what a delicious situation to be in.... half a million in rip offs, lying, etc and you get off scott free...
> ...




The next move on Thomson is for the police or the FWA, not for the Parliament.


----------



## drsmith (2 June 2012)

Our political leaders have failed totally here. It looks like the electorate will be left to make judgement when the time comes.



> If the committee ever finds against Mr Thomson, sources said it would reprimand him at most.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...dge-thomson-20120601-1zn4h.html#ixzz1waBGVTLB


----------



## joea (6 June 2012)

well the case is starting to emerge in the media.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/accu...head-are-false-court-told-20120606-1zvfr.html

The Australian has a bit more, as its quick off the mark.

I do think there is much going on behind the scene here with Shorten etc.
As I have mentioned before I think Kathy Jackson will be out of a job when the dust settles.
She is going to lose it because she is "a whistle blower" in the eyes of the union.
However hopefully the voter will see her as "doing the right thing".

Meanwhile the little grub in parliament is watching on with great interest.
joea


----------



## Julia (6 June 2012)

"The Australian" today outlined Kathy Jackson's having contacted the Judge's Associate associated with the hearing for putting the HSU into administration.

Obviously if she did this it was completely out of line.  Pity.  I've been impressed with her so far.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 June 2012)

Julia said:


> "The Australian" today outlined Kathy Jackson's having contacted the Judge's Associate associated with the hearing for putting the HSU into administration.
> 
> Obviously if she did this it was completely out of line.  Pity.  I've been impressed with her so far.




Agree Julia.

gg


----------



## joea (7 June 2012)

joea said:


> well the case is starting to emerge in the media.
> 
> I do think there is much going on behind the scene here with Shorten etc.
> As I have mentioned before I think Kathy Jackson will be out of a job when the dust settles.
> ...




It appears that the original complaint of Williamson and Thompson misplacing funds, has now turned into a "get rid of Kathy" campaign.
Now we just know that will happen!. But what we really want to know, Is Williamson and Thompson involved in corruption.
This is going to be worse than "the flood inquiry".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-06/court-told-of-defamatory-remarks-against-fwa27s-lawler/4056228

Myself I do not take anything from Kathy contacting the Judge's associate, until I hear her explaination on why the contact. One would assume it will come out, however after the contact I can only assume she was told to make no comment to the media.

joea
joea


----------



## nulla nulla (7 June 2012)

It seems that the prostitute pointing the finger at Mr Thompson has now admited that she wasn't in the country at the time of the alleged root. Not bad eh, paid $60,000 by channel 9 for not having a root. Must be the highest paid prostitute "not" in the country.


----------



## Calliope (7 June 2012)

nulla nulla said:


> It seems that the prostitute pointing the finger at Mr Thompson has now admited that she wasn't in the country at the time of the alleged root. Not bad eh, paid $60,000 by channel 9 for not having a root. Must be the highest paid prostitute "not" in the country.




It all seems a bit sus. Perhaps Channel Nine's offer has been gazumped by Thomson's supporters.


----------



## moXJO (7 June 2012)

nulla nulla said:


> It seems that the prostitute pointing the finger at Mr Thompson has now admited that she wasn't in the country at the time of the alleged root. Not bad eh, paid $60,000 by channel 9 for not having a root. Must be the highest paid prostitute "not" in the country.




Well ch9 did get a right royal screwing I would have thought


----------



## dutchie (7 June 2012)

moXJO said:


> Well ch9 did get a right royal screwing I would have thought




All good publicity - for $60k - bargain.


----------



## pilots (7 June 2012)

I don't buy the hookers story at all, her body language was all wrong, would not surprise me if some one has paid her to come up with the story I was in NZ. Hope I am wrong.


----------



## Calliope (7 June 2012)

pilots said:


> I don't buy the hookers story at all, her body language was all wrong, would not surprise me if some one has paid her to come up with the story I was in NZ. Hope I am wrong.




You must remember that in the "get off my back" doorstop speech Thomson was quite annoyed that Channel 9 had spent far more on prostitutes than he had. I think he has redressed that situation.


----------



## Calliope (7 June 2012)

It's not surprising that she was scared of the Labor enforcers.



> "She said 'I'm still sure that its' him but I can't go through with this, I don't want the government on my doorstep for the rest of my life."'
> 
> Mr Williams said ACA had never claimed the woman was the prostitute related to a specific $770 credit card charge in May 2005, but she had said she had sex with him in 2004 or 2005 at the Westin hotel.
> 
> "We've known all along, or at least subsequent to the conversation with Craig Thomson which I had in his office, that that was a different prostitute altogether," Mr Williams said.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ays-aca-producer/story-fndsip4d-1226387120273


----------



## Knobby22 (7 June 2012)

Who would have thought?
A woman of dubious virtue has dubious ethics!
I am sure Channel 9 will pick up another one who will say what they want given the right money.

It is sad to see such gutter press.


----------



## awg (7 June 2012)

Just the 101 of BS

arrange some hooker stories ( easy if they have a heroin habit)

rely on delay in the justice system

obfuscate

attack the whistleblower...

Kathy Jackson will get an awful kicking imo...thats what I would be doing anyway if I was Labor strategist...I cant believe she can come out clean of all this mess, she has got her snout right in the trough of power the whole time, with the other swine.

go Thommo


----------



## drsmith (7 June 2012)

awg said:


> Just the 101 of BS.



My thoughts to.

For the government, it's just about surviving to the next election.


----------



## dutchie (3 August 2012)

Larry Pickering gets into the Unions and Gordon and Slater

We need a Royal Commission into the Unions and their legal cronies.

Julia still has a lot of questions to answer in these sordid affairs.



http://lpickering.net/item/14053


NO WIN NO FEE:

Apart from having the sort of head you’d never get tired of kicking, AWU boss Paul Howes’ record of protecting workers’ interests is abysmal.

Police can’t act without a complaint and there are no complaints coming from Howes or the HSU East’s Williamson. It is no secret as to why.

When someone like the HSU East’s Kathy Jackson files a complaint, Bill Shorten shuts her down by placing the union in administration. Anyway, Craig Thomson is nothing but a small fish among schools of sharks in an ongoing feeding frenzy.

Howes’ union crony and co-Rudd assassin, Bill Shorten, does nothing either. (Except to plead it's an isolated case.) In fact, he goes to extreme lengths to obfuscate the blatant theft.

Left wing law firms have become union savvy and unions have become Left wing law firm savvy. Paul Howes, makes no effort to recover those stolen members’ funds. I wonder why.

The Gillard Government is a creation of corrupt unions, is stacked with ex-unionists (more than 50 of them) and protected by corrupt union bosses. The people who could bring down this corrupt Government (Craig Thomson, Doug McClelland and Ian Cambridge) have either been dumped or promoted to the union controlled FWA.

Oakeshott and Windsor will not walk the plank for the sake of this nation.

As an official of the ARU I quickly learnt the modus operandi of major unions. It wasn’t pretty then... it’s grotesquely ugly now.

The silence is deafening from the Left wing law firm, Slater & Gordon, as accusations continue to fly from credible sources.

It seems strange that a law firm would not immediately sue or at least take out an injunction against its accusers. Well, here you go boys, I’ll make it easy for you.

• You (Slater & Gordon) have been complicit in fraudulent activities involving AWU officials.

• You aided and abetted union officials in the theft of funds rightfully belonging to AWU members.

• You knew the accounts those stolen funds moved into and out of were fraudulent accounts set up by a certain Julia Eileen Gillard, your Partner.

How’s that? Enough for you yet? Okay, here’s some more:

• You aided and abetted a Bruce Morton Wilson in the dispersal of those stolen funds.

• You represented your client (the AWU) in clear conflict of interest.

• You provided a loan to Bruce Wilson when you knew the loan assisted in the fraud.

• You have done nothing to recover or assist to recover funds misappropriated by your clients, Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt.

• You refuse to release documentation detailing the above.

Is that enough boys, or should I go on? Come on, it's not that hard, surely. Sue me! You’re a law firm aren’t you? You can even give yourself mates’ rates.

There are more than 250,000 people who will see this article via blogs, 10,000 viral emails, Facebook, “The Pickering Post” and its Facebook. God knows how many they will share it with!

I notice you have bumped up your TV advertisements to convince people of your newfound “ethics”. Are you feeling the pinch?

Waste of money I’d say. Oh, unless it’s not yours.

What is it you say, “No Win, No Fee”? Well, you won’t win this one, so you’re home free. You can’t really lose can you?

Oh, yes you bloody can... and you know it!

You are a disgrace and menace to the industrial law you espouse, the people you represent and to the legal profession in general.

Come clean or come get me, you thieving, degenerate shysters!

LARRY PICKERING • 4 days ago


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2012)

Excellent, she's guilty alright, no doubt about it.:bad:


----------



## dutchie (8 August 2012)

More from Larry Pickering

http://lpickering.net/item/15205

(Part one)

OUR PRIME MINISTER IS A CROOK:

Julia Gillard’s latest makeover appears insufficient to cover her past.

An embattled Ralph Blewitt’s testimony will be challenged by the might of the PM’s Office but it is all too late. Basic truths are rapidly mushrooming to the surface and Pickering Post’s impeccable sources now appear to know more than even Ralph Blewitt knows.

The Pickering Post will not again ask the Prime Minister for answers. We don’t need to ask now.

We already know the answers and they are not pretty.

WA Premier, Brian Burke, Alan Bond and Laurie Connell all served time. The infamous Wilson/Gillard alliance emerged from the ashes of the WA Inc. scandal.

That Royal Commission did nothing to eradicate the next wave of corrupt union gangsters.

AWU boss, Bruce Morten Wilson was part of that new wave. Julia Eileen Gillard was later to become his pregnant girlfriend and partner in further crime.

Stories abound of a Perth-based Wilson capitalising on the growing WA boom regarding companies other than Thiess Contractors.

Pickering Post has been told, by various sources, of instances of a brash Wilson barging into developers’ boardrooms. The same old union threats to interrupt concrete pours caused ashen-faced board members to reach deep in their pockets.

It appeared extortion monies paid were going to the AWU. They weren’t. Eventually there were, in total, 12 illegal accounts. There was about to become a 13th illegal account and an extortion avalanche.

The story starts in 1992: Thiess Contractors’ WA Manager, Joe Trio was tendering for a lucrative wetlands job south of Perth. Wilson approached his friends in the then Labor Government and promised industrial peace if Thiess won the tender. Joe Trio’s Thiess Contractors won the tender.

There was no industrial unrest for the duration. Wilson now realised his immense political and fiscal power.

Ominously, Joe Trio was married to Bruce Wilson’s sister.

Later, in 1993, sums of money were appearing in a fraudulent account of Wilson’s, the account was disguised as an “AWU Workplace Reform Association” account.

We cannot confirm this, but ex-union sources are emphatic that it was Thiess Manager, Joe Trio, Wilson’s brother-in-law, who told Wilson illicit payments could not be paid directly to him. It was Trio who insisted Wilson set up accounts that would not attract attention.

Enter Julia Gillard, a young and naive, hard Left, lawyer, who naturally gravitated to the notorious Left wing law firm, Slater & Gordon. Peter Gordon of Slater & Gordon appointed Gillard as union envoy to Perth.

He instructed Gillard to hop on a plane and look after the “big boss”, Mr Bruce Wilson. Gillard certainly did that.

That night, at a dinner for union heavies at an exclusive Perth restaurant, Gillard and Wilson were finally left alone. At breakfast the next morning both were celebrating the consummation of what was to become a serious chapter in Australian political history.

Wilson accepted the position of Branch Secretary of the AWU in Melbourne. He resigned from the WA AWU but continued his remuneration from both branches.

Gillard then teamed up with Wilson and agreed to act for him, as Slater & Gordon already acted for the Vic. AWU.

THAT ACCOUNT:

Gillard, needing expert help, requested the assistance of another in-house lawyer, Bernard Murphy, to draw up the Association of Objects for the illegal account. They both worked on drafting the document. Gillard authored and signed the document.

Later, as PM, Gillard appointed Bernard Murphy as a Judge of the Federal Court.

Solicitors hold a copy of following chapters of this story:

Following instalments are ongoing and damaging. They include Shorten and Conroy’s role in the scandal. They include the immense and dastardly power of Gillard’s sacred hero, Bill Ludwig... how Gillard honoured his advice to her: “When you have the numbers, you can do what you like.” Why police investigations into Wilson were shelved. I sit at Bob Kernohan’s bedside in an unnamed Melbourne hospital. How the Left downed daggers with the Unity Right long enough to assassinate Rudd and install Gillard. How Blewitt was shafted by Gillard and Wilson. Why he never received one cent of stolen funds.

The payoffs, the bribes the sackings. Who is behind the repatriation of Blewitt and what he will say. Those in the ALP now plotting Gillard’s demise. It is a gripping saga and we have the full story... a story that will cause a Government to fall.
LARRY PICKERING • 1 day ago


----------



## dutchie (15 August 2012)

More from Pickering...

Part 2

IS OUR PRIME MINISTER A CROOK?:

Gillard’s old enemies are singing like canaries. They have seen the whites of her eyes and they are moving in for the kill.

Her enemies are former AWU officials and staff. Salivating ex-employees of her fraudster boyfriend, Bruce Wilson. They have a conscience and a clear, corroborated recollection of exactly what went on. They are willing to testify.

Wilson’s tenure as Secretary of the Vic. AWU, while living with Julia Gillard, is pock-marked with secret commissions and union extortion rackets inflicted on developers.

Wilson, at the same time he was living with Gillard, was also in a “close relationship” with another woman, attractive AWU book-keeper Marie Murray. (Ms Murray was a respondent in the successful litigation in the Federal Court to have Wilson and others repay $114,000 to the AWU.) The figure was the amount that Wilson had paid himself and others in false “redundancy entitlements”.

That Court Order was ignored by Wilson and never enforced by senior AWU Officials.

Concurrently, Wilson was in yet another “close relationship”... this time with Julia Gillard’s best friend, AWU Industrial Officer, Robyn McCleod. Gillard, even now, may not be aware of this. AWU staff confirm the tryst.

[At the invitation of Gillard, Ms McCleod, on June 26, 2010, flew to Canberra to join the celebration of Gillard’s ascension to Prime Minister. In April of the same year, Gillard was a witness to Ms McCleod’s marriage.]

A failed Labor candidate for the seat of Mordialloc (despite Gillard being her campaign manager) McCleod was branded a liar when caught out double dealing in South Australia. At the same time she was contracted to the SA Rann Labor Government as Water Security Commissioner. She later admitted to lying about an improper connection with Canberra.

McCleod had previously negotiated the Melbourne Water/Thiess contract for Wilson. The Commonwealth Bank account used for this little extortion racket was already set up as the “AWU Welfare Account”.

This account was a long-standing slush fund union officials used to buy votes in union elections. Bruce Wilson was a signatory to it. It was now to be used for something far more sinister.

Wilson began invoicing and receiving funds from various companies, including Thiess Contractors. Joe Trio, Manager of WA Thiess Contractors and Wilson’s brother-in-law, appeared removed from the Victorian scam. One cheque we can identify was for “services rendered” and amounted to $14,000.00, notated as 390 hours worked.

Services were never rendered nor were hours worked but there were verbal assurances given by Wilson to a range of construction companies that there would be industrial peace if certain sums were paid to the “AWU Welfare” account.

Those sums were paid on the pretext of “services rendered”. The companies enjoyed industrial peace for the duration of those projects.

Wilson’s stolen funds were mixed in with accounts that held union dues. Union dues do not attract tax. They were then withdrawn by Wilson in a tax free bonanza.

Wilson had successfully duplicated his WA extortion racket in Victoria... with the assistance of Gillard and Slater & Gordon.

Gillard had sought ALP pre-selection many times and was unsuccessful, even in marginal seats. Pre-selection committees balked at her shady alliance with Wilson and McCleod, and for good reason.

In Part 3, the story’s serpentine plot winds its way to the Office of Prime Minster. Gillard’s claim that she was unaware of Wilson’s activities will be discounted as rubbish.

Slater & Gordon and Gillard are assisting Wilson in disposing of the WA extorted funds. The ongoing scam has appeared all too easy for too long, now it begins to unravel. Monies are returned to developers in a desperate attempt to cover tracks.

When the proverbial hits the inevitable fan Gillard panics, Wilson does a runner and the hapless Blewitt disappears but not before big name players like Nicola Roxon, Bill Shorten and many others become indelibly embroiled.

The final of many acts is yet to be played out.
LARRY PICKERING • 6 days ago


----------



## dutchie (15 August 2012)

More from Larry Pickering...


Part III

IS OUR PRIME MINISTER A CROOK?:

It was a warm Sunday morning in Fitzroy in late 1992.

Bill Shorten and his lover Nicola Roxon had struggled out of bed late and were heading up Brunswick Street for breakfast when Bill noticed a couple they knew having coffee opposite.

They waved, crossed the road, and sat down with Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson. The conversation concerned no more than the weather but Julia was overtly gesticulating with her left hand. It bore a sizable stone in a white gold ring. “You guys are engaged!” exclaimed Bill. Julia blushed. Nicola looked askance at Bruce.

Julia was excited, in love, and it showed. But Nicola was aware that Bruce was bedding a number of other women, and it showed too, as she lowered her head and glared at Wilson. Wilson was known in AWU circles as “Wilson the Rooter”.

To understand Julia Gillard we must first visit her history.

It was impeccably Left. During her time at the University of Melbourne from 1982 to 1991 she was an active member of, and helped incorporate, the “Socialist Forum” (later to become the Fabian Society) an unabashed Communist organisation backed by none other than the infamous Bill Hartley and well-known Communist activists, Mark and Bernie Taft.

The “Forum’s” main role was to apply pressure within the ALP to adopt radical Communist policies.

Gillard’s commitment to the cause had led her to convince her parents, who were avid Dustan supporters, to join the South Australian Communist Party.

Gillard claims she does not recall her advocacy for redistribution of income and many other Communist aims although she was Public Officer, Secretary, and legal adviser on the drafting of the “Socialist Forum’s” Constitution.

Her compatriot, Phil Hind, regularly visited the former Soviet Union and returned to zealously promote the radical “reforms” of the Kremlin.

Gillard openly experimented sexually with other women but her main calling was to men.

She left The University of Melbourne to join the Left wing Law firm Slater & Gordon. A firm she was later to be sacked from for “indiscretions”.

Bruce Wilson was a well-practised AWU thug who extorted major developers. AWU members’ dues also found their way to his own private piggy bank.

Wilson now needed Gillard. She was the perfect target and he had carefully cultivated her for reasons other than his regular hormonal flushes.

The $17,000 of union funds he had spent at Town Mode Fashions wasn’t solely for the benefit of Gillard.

Wilson needed an industrial lawyer who would turn a blind eye and feign innocence when setting up fraudulent AWU accounts.

He also needed a fall guy called Ralph Blewitt. Gillard was later to draw up a Power of Attorney so as Wilson could act for Blewitt. Blewitt trusted him. He should not have.

Ralph Blewitt sent me this only this morning:

G'day Larry.

So we must fly a rebel flag,

As others did before us,

And we must sing a rebel song

And join in rebel chorus.

We'll make the tyrants feel the sting

O' those that they would throttle;

They needn't say the fault is ours

If blood should stain the wattle!"

Henry Lawson.

Regards Ralph.

Gillard’s current claims of “young and naive” do not apply to her complicity in widespread fraud. Those claims apply solely to Wilson’s false declarations of love for her.

As partner in the law firm it would be stupid as Prime Minister to suggest she was “young and naive” when she was clearly instrumental in the blatant fraud. She has not denied her complicity but claims she didn’t know what it was for. Mmmm, ok.

But Julia should not feel lonely. Wilson defecated on everyone he met.

Slater & Gordon aided and abetted the fraud. The AWU sacked the law firm and turned to the other infamous Left wing Law firm, Maurice Blackburn, where Bill Shorten and Nicola Roxon were resident.

It is Slater & Gordon’s ex- and current employees who are now daily leaking devastating information on the activities of this listed law firm. The ASX and ASIC will no doubt be taking an interest.

In Part IV, the AWU divides into two camps: Kernohan and Cambridge want the fraud exposed. Shorten wants it covered up. Shorten wins, for now. And we find out where Paul Howes sits and if his “zero tolerance for union corruption” is mere bluster in the pursuit of self preservation. Regardless, with what is about to be exposed, Gillard’s tenure can now be measured in weeks.
LARRY PICKERING • 4 days ago


----------



## dutchie (15 August 2012)

More from Larry Pickering...


Part IV

IS OUR PRIME MINISTER A CROOK?:

Julia Gillard was in tears when she called Bruce Wilson to tell him she had been sacked from Slater & Gordon.

The $17,000.00 spent at Town Mode Fashions had nothing to do with fashion. Town Mode Fashions was owned by a Greek builder. The very same builder who was performing the renovations! Yet another amateurish attempt by Bonny and Clyde to hide the source and terminus of the stolen funds.

When the Town Mode Fashions money ran out the Greek renovator innocently sent the invoices to the AWU head office. Union bosses demanded to know what the hell was going on. It didn’t take them long to link Slater & Gordon to the scam.

One phone call and the game was up for Gillard and Wilson.

Slater & Gordon’s Peter Gordon suggested Gillard resign but made it very clear she was going, one way or the other. He was not so concerned at what she had done but he needed to immediately distance the already tainted Slater & Gordon from yet another looming scandal.

The AWU was a major client of Slater & Gordon and it was clear that Gillard and another in-house lawyer and Partner, Bernard Murphy, had facilitated the theft of AWU funds. Murphy soon thereafter relocated to work for the other Left wing law firm, Maurice Blackburn.

Gillard later, as Prime Minister, was to reward Murphy’s assistance in the fraud with an appointment to Judge of the Federal Court. He remains there.

Wilson was worried. He suggested to Julia they get away for a while to regroup at their regular haunt, The Grand Hotel in Healesville. They spent a week there hatching a plan to credibly deny the fraud. But those denials were to become anything but credible.

Wilson used either the Healesville Hotel or the Grand Promenade at Lorne for his regular dirty weekends. Unknown to Julia the weekends often excluded her.

Ex-friends describe Wilson’s regular weekend rant that AWU Supremo, “Big Bill” Ludwig was grooming him for ALP leadership.

After they returned from Healesville, Gillard remained unemployed for six months. She never again worked in law. Wilson scarpered back to Perth to his waiting wife and two boys.

“Big Bill” Ludwig ruled Canberra with an iron fist from Queensland and no-one, including ALP Prime Ministers, dared fart without his permission. Except Kevin Rudd.

His initial disdain for Gillard waned in the wake of his hatred for the factionless Rudd and he later endorsed her Prime Ministership.

It was now clear that possibly millions in union funds had been stolen. Ludwig flew into a blind rage. He and AWU boss Ian Cambridge immediately called in the cops, sacked Slater & Gordon and called for a Royal Commission.

Police investigations were proceeding well until they unexpectedly requested AWU files.

Kernohan’s protÃ©gÃ© Bill Shorten insisted the investigation be closed down. “Public exposure to AWU files will mean we are all stuffed”, he declared. “Bill Ludwig will be finished!” Shorten and others knew that Ludwig himself had had his fingers in the till for years.

Union corruption was rife. The millions rorted from HSU (East) and AWU members were just the tip of the iceberg.

Discovery was only ever accidental.

Shorten was later to become National Secretary of the AWU and an expert in closing down police enquiries into unions. The police in this case were unable to continue without further information and they weren’t getting it from union bosses.

Enter Paul (Piggy) Howes, current AWU National Secretary. “This is an isolated case”, he says. “We have zero tolerance for union corruption.” Ok Piggy, you have blatantly lied before. Let’s see if you are lying again now.

Hand over the files. Your “zero tolerance” will assist in recovering your members’ stolen funds... but it will destroy your friends and devastate your union. Your call, Piggy.

What’s it to be? Show us who you really act for, you bloated bastard?

Part V discloses Slater & Gordon’s conflict of interest and the report being prepared for the Law Institute. How the AWU is still refusing to make any attempt to chase their members’ stolen funds despite a Court Order that monies be returned.

The young and naive Julia knew of Wilson’s marriage to a Swiss Italian girl in Perth and his two boys. Had Wilson promised to divorce his wife for Julia? Why Wilson finishes up broke and friendless.
LARRY PICKERING • 2 days ago


----------



## basilio (15 August 2012)

Well Dutchie thanks for regaling us at length with Larry Pickerings lurid, make believe stories. I'm just waiting for his revealtions of the pedophiles, scam artists and other myriad ratbags infesting the Labour Party.. 

While your at it while not Google Larry Picketing scammer and see just how corrupt your source is Dutchie ? Larry has got *proven, demonstrated *form as a serial liar and scammer.  Do you expect us to take this dribble seriously ?

Larry Pickering The Scammer: Larrys Latest Scam Company Name!
larrypickering.blogspot.com/.../larrys-latest-scam-company-name.ht...
14 May 2006 – Larry Pickering The Scammer. Info on Larry pickerings latest scams. Australia, QLD, Surfers Paradise - and beyond!

ozripoffscam.blogspot.com/.../ok-everyone-this-is-to-let-everyone.ht...
4 Jun 2010 – Ok everyone this is to let everyone know that OZRIPOFF is being run by Larry Pickering and Wayne Evans and we have just had confirmation of ...

Larry Pickering and CSI Arbitrage's Day of Judgement
www.sportsarbitrageguide.com/scams/larry-pickering-and-csi-arbitra...
16 Oct 2011 – CSI Arbitrage was surely the most successful Scam Pickering ever ran ... It was if Larry was permanently beyond the reach of civil complaints ...


----------



## bellenuit (15 August 2012)

dutchie said:


> More from Larry Pickering...
> 
> 
> Part III
> ...




This information is too detailed and intimate to be anything but made up. How would, for instance, anyone know what state Shorten and Roxen were in when they got out of bed?


----------



## sails (15 August 2012)

Basilio - regardless of Pickering's own past, only time will tell if these writings are somewhere near the truth.  It's not only Pickering.  Milne and Smith both lost their jobs over this story.  Some of this is apparently in the Hansard.

Than Kangaroo Court of Australia has articles on this same story:  
Bagman Ralph Blewitt wants to reveal all in the Bruce Wilson – Julia Gillard AWU fraud scandal.

What is true and what isn't remains to be seen.


Edit: And a series of videos can be found here on the same issue - scroll down the page to find the relevant videos:  http://www.youtube.com/user/CANdoAust


----------



## Julia (15 August 2012)

bellenuit said:


> This information is too detailed and intimate to be anything but made up. How would, for instance, anyone know what state Shorten and Roxen were in when they got out of bed?



+1.  Or what Wilson and Gillard discussed when they were away on holiday.


----------



## dutchie (17 August 2012)

More from Larry Pickering...

Part V

IS OUR PRIME MINISTER A CROOK?:

Julia wandered aimlessly around her Abbottsford home. She had been unemployed for almost six months since she was sacked from Slater & Gordon. Her money had run out and her boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, had run off. Those lost six months were to mysteriously disappear from her CV.

If only things could have been different. She now knew she could never practise law again and anyway her Practising Certificate was soon to expire.

Julia had put her neck on the line for that bastard Wilson. He had promised her the world and she got peanuts from their clever scam. He was safe back in Perth with his wife, Francine, and the boys. She was left alone and with nothing.

The truth was Julia had knowingly help set up the infrastructure for Wilson’s money laundering. With the help of another Slater & Gordon Partner, Bernard Murphy, she had drawn up the documents that allowed Wilson to open a fraudulent account through which the extorted funds were to be laundered.

She had set up a Power of Attorney for Wilson to act on behalf of his friend Ralph Blewitt in laundering the funds. Wilson and she were living in the Kerr Street home bought with the stolen funds including a mortgage arranged in the name of Slater & Gordon’s Senior Partner, Jonathon Rothfield.

“Fall guy” Blewitt was blissfully unaware of the mortgage.

When the Kerr Street home was sold the money vanished. Blewitt, the oblivious owner, did not see a cent.

Meanwhile, back in Perth, Wilson was living the life of Riley. He had bought a restaurant called “Rumbrellas” and had spent $330,000 on renovations. Unfortunately, although Wilson was a dab hand at stealing, his business acumen was appalling. “Rumbrellas” was soon in liquidation. Wilson was broke.

He asked his offsider Ralph Blewitt for a $20,000 loan. Blewitt refused. Wilson suggested to Blewitt that one phone call to Big Bill Ludwig and Blewitt would never work again. That wasn’t true of course but Blewitt loaned him the money anyway. The loan was never repaid.

Back at Abbottsford, Julia called a friend, Carol Pyke, who had ALP connections in Victoria and asked her if she would move in to help defray the costs. She did and Julia eventually sold her half of the Abbottsford property.

Despite her known involvement in the extortion/money laundering affair, Julia was still determined to enter Parliament. But each time she sought pre-selection she was thwarted by her own Party. Centre Unity faction members of the ALP insisted Julia Gillard, of the Socialist Left faction, was an unsuitable candidate because of the known scandal.

[Many years later, power broker, Mark Abib, was to negotiate Gillard swapping factions to allow her to become Prime Minister... and without reference to Caucus.]

The focus is now back on Slater & Gordon. Although a listed company they still refuse to come clean on what went on. Why was their client, the AWU, not alerted to the false accounts? Why was the AWU not told of the funds, the laundering, the house, the conveyancing, the mortgage, the profit from the sale of the house?

They refuse to release the conveyancing details of the Kerr Street property claiming privilege. Yet there is no privilege associated with conveyancing.

It was rightfully AWU members’ money. It was Slater & Gordon’s Partners Gillard and Murphy and senior Partner Rothfield who set the whole thing up!

Convicted Partners of Keddies Law firm, owned by Slater & Gordon, have outwitted creditors of millions, according to a report in tomorrow’s Sydney Morning Herald.

Disclosure of Freedom of Information documents is being thwarted by the Victorian Police. “Too busy”, they say.

They have sat on the application for two months and say it may be another two months. Regulations demand a period of no longer than 30 days.

In the meantime “Pickering Post” is being constantly attacked by hackers using DDoS.

They may silence us for a while but the truth will out.

Much more to come.
LARRY PICKERING • 13 hours ago


----------



## dutchie (21 August 2012)

What I can't understand is that with all the misappropriated money taken from the Union funds non of the Unions make any effort to get the money back.

They sure do let their members down. (Why would you pay fees?)

There are a lot of coverups (which may include Gillard). 

I think it is because only the tip of the iceberg has been disclosed and that there may also be rorts with the Super Funds.


----------



## drsmith (21 August 2012)

It's all cleared up. FWA is crook and Craig Thompson's off the hook, according to Craig Thompson.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-21/fair-work-hsu-investigation-flawed-independent-review/4213408


----------



## sptrawler (21 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> It's all cleared up. FWA is crook and Craig Thompson's off the hook, according to Craig Thompson.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-21/fair-work-hsu-investigation-flawed-independent-review/4213408




In my opinion drsmith, I think the Craig Thomson issue is just the tip of the iceberg. I.M.O It won't be long before superannuation fraud hits the spotlight, I don't think there is any checks in place so one can only imagine what is going on.


----------



## sptrawler (27 August 2012)

Well this is classic, the more things change, the more they stay the same.LOL,LOL,LOL

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/14679161/hsu-president-moves-to-oust-kathy-jackson/

Yes they want to sack the whistle blower and get back to the status quo.


----------



## drsmith (27 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well this is classic, the more things change, the more they stay the same.LOL,LOL,LOL
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/14679161/hsu-president-moves-to-oust-kathy-jackson/
> 
> Yes they want to sack the whistle blower and get back to the status quo.



This just serves to remind the public what a filthy stinking mess this all is.


----------



## Miss Hale (28 August 2012)

Surely this is a very bad move by the unions.  There is a huge amount of sympathy for Kathy Jackson amonsgt the general public in all this.


----------



## dutchie (4 October 2012)

Look out Craig - your next

Williamson arrested over hindering HSU probe

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wi...dering-hsu-probe/story-e6frf7jo-1226487850458


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2012)

dutchie said:


> Look out Craig - your next
> 
> Williamson arrested over hindering HSU probe
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wi...dering-hsu-probe/story-e6frf7jo-1226487850458




It is all just amazing, and to think most of the labor government are union officials.
How about the fact he is still being payed $550,000, I bet he will still get payed if he is in gaol. What an unbelievable and corrupt mess.
This really does require a Royal Commission into unions.IMO


----------



## drsmith (4 October 2012)

dutchie said:


> Look out Craig - your next
> 
> Williamson arrested over hindering HSU probe
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wi...dering-hsu-probe/story-e6frf7jo-1226487850458



The deeper investigations go, the wider the net is cast.



> Detective Superintendent Dyson did not rule out further arrests in relation to the investigation.
> 
> "I want to make it clear that the investigation has not cleared any persons of interest," he said.
> 
> "In fact, we have more persons of interest now than when the investigation started."




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-04/hsu-boss-likely-to-be-charged/4294668?WT.svl=news0

Craig Thomson right now will be pooping his pants.


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2012)

sptrawler said:


> In my opinion drsmith, I think the Craig Thomson issue is just the tip of the iceberg. I.M.O It won't be long before superannuation fraud hits the spotlight, I don't think there is any checks in place so one can only imagine what is going on.




That was from a post in August, have a read of this article Doc.

http://afr.com/p/opinion/rigged_rules_super_disgrace_Tdkjh35LrpoY8MVWckUjPI

Mr Williamson gets a mention.


----------



## drsmith (4 October 2012)

sptrawler said:


> That was from a post in August, have a read of this article Doc.
> 
> http://afr.com/p/opinion/rigged_rules_super_disgrace_Tdkjh35LrpoY8MVWckUjPI
> 
> Mr Williamson gets a mention.




Just the sort of character you want on the board of a $31bn superannuation fund.


----------



## moXJO (15 October 2012)

Well well



> FAIR Work Australia has laid charges against independent MP Craig Thomson, alleging he broke industrial laws and union rules in splurging hundreds of thousands dollars of union funds on prostitutes, spousal travel, and high living.
> 
> FWA spokeswoman Diana Lloyd confirmed to The Australian that civil charges were filed in the Federal Court this morning, and served on Mr Thomson in the afternoon.






> The FWA action against Mr Thomson, being of a civil rather than criminal nature, has no direct bearing on his legal ability to continue in parliament, though it would be likely to embolden the federal coalition to apply further pressure on him to resign.



Damn it
will have to wait on the police investigation which they say is well advanced


----------



## dutchie (15 October 2012)

Fair Work Australia charges Craig Thomson over union funds.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...es-craig-thomson/story-fndsip4d-1226496362921



Not even the Labor party can stop the slow wheel of Justice turning.


----------



## drsmith (15 October 2012)

Slowly, but surely, this government is closing in on its day of reckoning with shame.


----------



## Bushman (15 October 2012)

When Julia Gillard was told about these proceedings against Thomson today, she replied that 'Tony Abbott is a sexist, a mysoginist and that he kicks puppies when no-one is looking'. 

When asked about her judgement when it comes to Labor 'blokes' like Mussels, Thomson, KRuddy and Mr 'slush fund', she replied that 'Tony Abbott is a sexist, a misogynist, has funny ears and is actually the re-incarnation of Santamaria'.

What a feminist icon ...


----------



## drsmith (15 October 2012)

Bushman said:


> What a feminist icon ...



Sonewhere she learned that,

_If there's nothing nice that can be said about ourselves, say something nasty about someone else._

As for the statement of claim against Craig Thompson itself, it's rather long.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/110035686/FWA-v-Craig-Thomson-SOC


----------



## dutchie (15 October 2012)

Bushman said:


> When Julia Gillard was told about these proceedings against Thomson today, she replied that 'Tony Abbott is a sexist, a mysoginist and that he kicks puppies when no-one is looking'.
> 
> When asked about her judgement when it comes to Labor 'blokes' like Mussels, Thomson, KRuddy and Mr 'slush fund', she replied that 'Tony Abbott is a sexist, a misogynist, has funny ears and is actually the re-incarnation of Santamaria'.
> 
> What a feminist icon ...



LOL


Actually she responds to questions with:

"This has all been covered before and Tony Abbott is a sexist, a mysoginist and ............"


----------



## Julia (15 October 2012)

moXJO said:


> Well well
> Damn it
> will have to wait on the police investigation which they say is well advanced



Not necessarily.
Fair Work Australia are bringing more than 60 charges against Thomson.  If he is convicted of any/all of these, he can be fined $6600 for each one.  That's nearly $400,000.  The Labor Party have declared they will not be giving him any assistance, so if he were unable to come up with such a sum, he could have to declare bankruptcy, and if that happened he would have to resign from Parliament.

Lots of 'ifs', however, before we can look forward to any such thing.


----------



## sptrawler (16 October 2012)

Julia said:


> Not necessarily.
> Fair Work Australia are bringing more than 60 charges against Thomson.  If he is convicted of any/all of these, he can be fined $6600 for each one.  That's nearly $400,000.  The Labor Party have declared they will not be giving him any assistance, so if he were unable to come up with such a sum, he could have to declare bankruptcy, and if that happened he would have to resign from Parliament.
> 
> Lots of 'ifs', however, before we can look forward to any such thing.




Yes it is strange, they can seem to get away with throwing around slurs on Abbotts character. 
While at the same time seeming to aid and abett people such as Thompson and Slipper.
In my opinion, it seems difficult to talk about this government without using the word shamefull. I'm not being funny, but how do you explain their behaviour in a word. Without swearing, even then you have to use two words
------- useless.


----------



## dutchie (16 October 2012)

The answer to the Thread is NO

This is how the system works.

I think the sleaze Craig Thompson is guilty of misappropriating money from the HSU.  I think all of Australia knows this, even the Labor party and the HSU.

Unfortunately I think he is going to get away with it and no one will lay a finger on him. He will not pay back one cent, he will pay no fines. He will retain his parliamentary pension and perks.

No doubt, knowing how the Labor/Unions system works, he will end up with a well paid Union job after he is kicked out by his electorate at the next elections.

Fair Work Australia, set up by the Labor government,  took a very long time to bring out its report about Thompson. I wonder why???

Might it be that the statute of limitations might save Thompson.  The poor man has had to wait so long for justice that all charges will be dropped!  That was lucky for him and Labor was it not.

But should not the Labor government at least show some moral rectitude and not accept his vote – oh no we can bring out that old chestnut – “this is still a court matter yadda yadda yadda”.

Will Thompson or Labor be nervous one way or the other? No, because they know that either way no decision will be reached before the end of this parliament’s term.

The winners – the brothels that Thompson visited, Thompson’s bank account, the Labor party.


The losers – hard working HSU families and you!


----------



## Calliope (16 October 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Yes it is strange, they can seem to get away with throwing around slurs on Abbotts character.
> While at the same time seeming to aid and abett people such as Thompson and Slipper.
> In my opinion, it seems difficult to talk about this government without using the word shamefull. I'm not being funny, but how do you explain their behaviour in a word. Without swearing, even then you have to use two words
> ------- useless.




It is indeed a shameful government that can only survive with the support of nasty people like Slipper and Thomson. Neither they nor Gillard have any shame.

It is strange that Gillard's support of these sleazebags combined with the hissy fit against Abbott, raised her popularity in the polls with both women *and men*. Obviously as a population we have become inured to "shame." Gillard's Bonny and Clyde act with Bruce Wilson when she was a "young and naive" 34 probably impresses her female supporters.



> Globally, Australia's first female prime minister won the general admiration and affirmation of men and women alike and the same case was seen locally as online news site Crikey reported on Monday that Ms Gillard's poll standings were lifted in the past week, thanks both to male and female voters.


----------



## drsmith (16 October 2012)

Calliope said:


> It is strange that Gillard's support of these sleazebags combined with the hissy fit against Abbott, raised her popularity in the polls with both women *and men*. Obviously as a population we have become inured to "shame." Gillard's Bonny and Clyde act with Bruce Wilson when she was a "young and naive" 34 probably impresses her female supporters.



In terms of voting preferences however, Labor's wheels spun in the sand. No traction there.

Tony Abbott and the Coalition though also had a poor week. Perhaps not as bad as Labor, but the political mistakes they made set their case for government backwards in my view.


----------



## drsmith (17 October 2012)

Slowly but surely, the noose continues to tighten.



> NSW police have said for the first time that they will lay criminal charges, possibly before Christmas, over allegations of systemic corruption in the Health Services Union's NSW branch.
> 
> They have also confirmed that independent MP Craig Thomson remains a subject of inquiries.






> The Australian has learned that FWA may issue subpoenas to determine the identity of a mystery individual on the NSW central coast whom Mr Thomson rang on some of the nights he allegedly spent with prostitutes.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e-over-hsu-graft/story-fn59noo3-1226497365234


----------



## dutchie (19 October 2012)

OMG, HSU members actually say something!

Craig Thomson paid escorts with our money, unionists say 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ey-unionists-say/story-e6freuy9-1226498860726


----------



## drsmith (24 October 2012)

Craig Thomson's home raided by police.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-24/police-raid-thomsons-home/4330796


----------



## MrBurns (24 October 2012)

drsmith said:


> Craig Thomson's home raided by police.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-24/police-raid-thomsons-home/4330796




He's had months to clear the place out.


----------



## dutchie (24 October 2012)

MrBurns said:


> He's had months to clear the place out.




No doubt. But I think part of raid was to get examples of his handwriting.

"I have done nothing wrong"
i.e. this is normal union official behaviour!

Scumbag


----------



## dutchie (25 October 2012)

Police closing on *criminal charges *against Craig Thomson 

(my bold)


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...st-craig-thomson/story-e6freuy9-1226502715849


----------



## noco (9 November 2012)

dutchie said:


> Police closing on *criminal charges *against Craig Thomson
> 
> (my bold)
> 
> ...




Please read this attached link of an investigation carried out by Slater and Gordon in 2009 and it then it took FWA 3 years to act on it. Guess who would have delayed it all?

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...craig-thomson-for-fraud-the-real-smoking-gun/


----------



## drsmith (10 November 2012)

noco said:


> Please read this attached link of an investigation carried out by Slater and Gordon in 2009 and it then it took FWA 3 years to act on it. Guess who would have delayed it all?
> 
> http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...craig-thomson-for-fraud-the-real-smoking-gun/



That hit the press at the time.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/card-rort-findings-sent-to-regulator-20090615-cast.html

One interesting bit from the 2009 SMH article above, 



> In a previously undisclosed detail the report said one of these transactions, a sizeable payment to a Sydney escort agency operator, Keywed Pty Ltd, in April 2005, was initially charged to Mr Thomson's union Diners Club card, but was then reversed and processed on his MasterCard a day or two later.
> 
> This undermines suggestions by Mr Thomson that someone else with unauthorised access to the MasterCard may have been responsible for the "adult services" transactions.




The above has been drawn from point 73 of the report above.

He'll be charged. It's only a question of time now.


----------



## Julia (19 December 2012)

Just out from the ABC
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-...after-subpoenas-returned/4436718?WT.svl=news0



> Subpoenas 'produce no evidence' against Thomson




This is a bit of a surprise, isn't it?


----------



## drsmith (19 December 2012)

Julia said:


> This is a bit of a surprise, isn't it?



From his lawyer, no. 

The well is far from dry.

There's the actual transactions on his union credit card and the mobile calls.

Evidence that cannot be denied.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Just out from the ABC
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-...after-subpoenas-returned/4436718?WT.svl=news0
> 
> 
> ...




Not really.

Slipper is innocent.

Thomson is innocent.

Gawd help us all.

And poor bastards in Townsville get sent down for 6 months for shoplifting or smoking dope.

No wonder there is no trust in Judges or Parliament.

gg


----------



## drsmith (19 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Slipper is innocent.
> 
> Thomson is innocent.
> 
> Gawd help us all.



You forgot a few.

Gillard is innocent.

Shorten is innocent.

Labor is innocent.

The Greens are innocent.

People are drowning in the Indian Ocean between Indonesia and Australia.

No god or our current government is helping them.


----------



## noco (19 December 2012)

How much did Labor pay the brothels to keep their mouths shut?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 January 2013)

noco said:


> How much did Labor pay the brothels to keep their mouths shut?




from the AFR a Fairfax journal not known to be kind to anti ALP opinions.



> CLAIRE STEWART
> The Fair Work Commission could widen its evidence gathering mission against former Labor minister Craig Thomson if the latest round of subpoenas issued to businesses around NSW fails to turn up information relating to his alleged misuse of union funds.
> 
> The investigative arm of the industrial relations umpire confirmed 17 fresh subpoenas were sent out in late December, including some to brothels and hotels.
> ...




gg


----------



## drsmith (5 February 2013)

Today's media appearances by Craig Thomson is totally bizzare. He's obviously been told to do it, but by whom and why ?

The only logic that comes to my mind is that Labor itself has given up on the PM's leadership and the advisors are white-anting of her prime-ministership from within.


----------



## Julia (5 February 2013)

Interview with Craig Thompson today with ABC Radio's "The World Today".
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3683455.htm


----------



## sptrawler (6 February 2013)

drsmith said:


> Today's media appearances by Craig Thomson is totally bizzare. He's obviously been told to do it, but by whom and why ?
> 
> The only logic that comes to my mind is that Labor itself has given up on the PM's leadership and the advisors are white-anting of her prime-ministership from within.




They are obviously hemorrhaging, apparently today they were paying out on Faulkner for asking them to re assess their values.lol
It has all become a quagmire of who owes who and who hasn't paid. Nasty mess at present and one would think it will become nastier. 
If Abbott gets in and has a Royal Commission into unions.
That will definitely be made into a movie, it would be classic theatre of a magnitude never seen in Australia.IMO


----------



## drsmith (6 February 2013)

It would appear that the prosecuters have the bank statements.

http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/files/craig-thomson-charge-sheet-and-warrant-to-arrest.pdf


----------



## Julia (22 February 2013)

The police investigation into Mr Thomson seems to be pretty thorough.
http://www.news.com.au/national/hotel-search-warrants-in-thomson-case/story-fncynjr2-1226582188549


----------



## Bintang (23 February 2013)

Julia said:


> The police investigation into Mr Thomson seems to be pretty thorough.
> http://www.news.com.au/national/hotel-search-warrants-in-thomson-case/story-fncynjr2-1226582188549




I like this bit, "Responding to the latest police actions, Mr Thomson's lawyer, Chris McArdle, told News Limited: "It's a pity they are wasting their time. They should be chasing real criminals."

Is this a Freudian slip? Could McArdle have been thinking about the 'real Julia'.


----------



## Calliope (26 February 2013)

It looks like Craig Thomson is safe.



> A UNIVERSITY professor who used research grants to pay for reflexology treatment, massages, wine, cosmetics, tourist attraction tickets and a noodle-maker is set to win compensation after the *Fair Work Commission* ruled his dismissal was harsh.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...sed-for-massages/story-fn59noo3-1226585441818


----------



## Julia (26 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> It looks like Craig Thomson is safe.



Are the matters comparable?   Didn't FWA bring a case against Thomson?  Perhaps I'm confused about who has done what to whom in this sordid saga.


----------



## drsmith (28 February 2013)

All this must be very difficult for Zoe Arnold, Craig Thomson's Wife.

http://aww.ninemsn.com.au/news/newsstories/8616694/why-do-australians-hate-women-leaders


----------



## MrBurns (30 April 2013)

I'm dreaming right ?



> Craig Thomson asks public to help fund legal defence
> 
> Former Labor MP Craig Thomson has resorted to calling for public donations to fund his legal battle.
> 
> Thomson has been charged with 154 counts of fraud over accusations he used funds from the Health Services Union (HSU) to pay for prostitutes, travel and expensive meals, during his time as the HSU's national secretary between 2002 and 2007.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-30/thomson-asks-public-to-donate-to-legal-defence/4661000


----------



## dutchie (30 April 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I'm dreaming right ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-30/thomson-asks-public-to-donate-to-legal-defence/4661000





I would not give him a cent. He will only siphon it off and waste it on prostitutes.


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2013)

dutchie said:


> I would not give him a cent. He will only siphon it off and waste it on prostitutes.



Craig Thompson Just doesn't get it. With all the problems Labor currently has, he again pops his head up when he shouldn't.

I wonder how much Julia Gillard is personally contributing.


----------



## sptrawler (30 April 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I'm dreaming right ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-30/thomson-asks-public-to-donate-to-legal-defence/4661000




I don't have a problem with that, most in the union know the shonky crap that goes on, it has been in news enough.
If he wants to ask the same idiots, to put up more money, to save his @rse.
More fool them, it just shows how little respect he has for them.


----------



## DB008 (30 April 2013)

*Independent Dobell MP Craig Thomson struggles on $190,550*



> A FINANCIALLY-strained Craig Thomson has resorted to accepting crowd-sourced money for his legal defence from a fund set up in his name by two supporters he has never met.
> 
> Mr Thomson, whose bank balance has reached as low as $60, denies he is at risk of bankruptcy, which would see him barred from Parliament, as he defends more than 150 charges of fraud.
> 
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/national-news/help-thomson-struggles-on-190550/story-fncynjr2-1226632585642#ixzz2RwZOro00

He must be using those 'high class escorts' that charge $2000++ per hour


----------



## bigdog (1 May 2013)

*Craig Thomson sets up slush fund but calls it a trust fund to pay his legal bills*

Click on the link below to read the article

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...calls-it-a-trust-fund-to-pay-his-legal-bills/


----------



## bigdog (1 May 2013)

https://sites.google.com/site/craigthomsonlegaldefencefund/


Dear Friends,

The purpose of this web page is to provide details of an account which accepts donations for my legal defence. This approved account has been established by two supporters who have kindly agreed to act as the signatories.

I have made it clear on numerous occasions in the media that I am innocent of all allegations made against me before the courts.

I strongly believe in the constitution and that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Unfortunately these common law principles and accepted constitutional rights of every Australian have been abused by prominent politicians under parliamentary privilege and by some commentators.

I know that like me, a great majority of people believe in the rights of all Australians to defend themselves in a court of law. To help me defend myself against these wrongful charges, your donations are greatly appreciated. The account details are below.

If you so wish, please send me an email at the address below when you donate to the account because I would personally like to thank you: craigthomsondefencefund@gmail.com


Sincerely

CRAIG THOMSON

ACCOUNT DETAILS:

Commonwealth Bank
Account Name: Mark Worthington & Rodney Allan 
BSB: 06 2504
A/C No: 1055 0760


----------



## drsmith (1 May 2013)

Michael Smith is of the view this fund has been set up by his taxpayer funded Press Secretary David Gardiner.



> Showing 1 result for craig
> 
> Untitled 9 hours ago by David Gardiner
> 
> ... the account because I would personally like to thank you: craigthomsondefencefund@gmail.com   Sincerely   CRAIG THOMSON     ACCOUNT DETAILS: Commonwealth Bank Account Name: Mark Worthington & Rodney Allan BSB: 06 2504 A ...




http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...90000-base-pay-the-site-tells-us-it-was-.html

https://sites.google.com/site/craig...em/app/pages/search?scope=search-site&q=craig


----------



## bigdog (5 May 2013)

*Labor Party VP Tony Sheldon threatens defamation proceedings against KCA regarding Craig Thomson*

Read Shane Dowling's article about the threatening letter from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers on behalf of Labor Party Vice President Tony Sheldon in his capacity as National Secretary of the Transport Workers Union.

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...ceedings-against-kca-regarding-craig-thomson/


----------



## dutchie (16 May 2013)

The scum bag is running as an independent. Thought he was broke?

He will only get two votes (him and wife).

Craig, just p#ss off (to goal preferably)!


----------



## MrBurns (16 May 2013)

dutchie said:


> The scum bag is running as an independent. Thought he was broke?
> 
> He will only get two votes (him and wife).
> 
> Craig, just p#ss off (to goal preferably)!




+1 this creep should just get lost


----------



## waza1960 (16 May 2013)

It will be an interesting reflection on the voting public....

  How could anyone vote for him?
   Lets see how many do.


----------



## bigdog (16 May 2013)

dutchie said:


> The scum bag is running as an independent. Thought he was broke?
> 
> He will only get two votes (him and wife).
> 
> Craig, just p#ss off (to goal preferably)!




If your party does not re-endorse you for the next election; why not stand as a independent!!!
-- governments have been approving redundancy payouts for pollies loosing their seats at the next election!

IMO, Craig is only standing knowing he will loose his seat with two votes and rake in the redundancy payout for unseated pollies.!

IMO, I believe that this will be the pursuit for many pollies nationwide not re-endorsed by their party!
-- Victoria has just approved redundancy payouts for unseated pollies


----------



## MrBurns (16 May 2013)

bigdog said:


> If your party does not re-endorse you for the next election; why not stand as a independent!!!
> -- governments have been approving redundancy payouts for pollies loosing their seats at the next election!
> 
> IMO, Craig is only standing knowing he will loose his seat with two votes and rake in the redundancy payout for unseated pollies.!
> ...




One day...one day..........one day the people will stand up and the revolution against these parasites will start, I'm buying shares in a gallows business.


----------



## drsmith (20 June 2013)

Some light relief from Craig Thompson's lawyer.

2GB interview with Chris McArdle yesterday. Like Craig Thomson himself, he truly lives in another world. In the second half of the interview, he gets quiet nasty.

http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/9854


----------



## dutchie (20 June 2013)

drsmith said:


> Some light relief from Craig Thompson's lawyer.
> 
> 2GB interview with Chris McArdle yesterday. Like Craig Thomson himself, he truly lives in another world. In the second half of the interview, he gets quiet nasty.
> 
> http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/9854




Sounds like they both have a lot in common.

They are both d*ckheads. No wonder he's Craig's lawyer.


----------



## drsmith (20 June 2013)

dutchie said:


> Sounds like they both have a lot in common.
> 
> They are both d*ckheads. No wonder he's Craig's lawyer.



He clearly thinks any publicity is good publicity while being an actual lawyer rates a distant second.


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2013)

What was that old saying? Something like, "When thieves fall out, the truth will come out"

One wonders if Craig is having issues.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/18147872/thomson-lawyer-seeks-damages-from-labor/


----------



## drsmith (26 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> What was that old saying? Something like, "When thieves fall out, the truth will come out"
> 
> One wonders if Craig is having issues.
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/18147872/thomson-lawyer-seeks-damages-from-labor/



Either an attempt to put more distance between Craig Thomson and Labor ahead of the election or they are starting to fight amongst themselves.


----------



## bigdog (28 July 2013)

*Kangaroo Court of Australia - Shane Dowling - VG articles worth reading*

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...-in-an-affidavit-while-suing-the-labor-party/

*Craig Thomson’s lawyer, Chris McArdle, caught lying in an affidavit while suing the Labor Party*

Craig Thomson’s lawyer, Chris McArdle, has clearly committed the criminal offences of attempting to pervert the course of justice and perjuring himself in an affidavit in his role of defending Craig Thomson. The evidence for this is 2 contradictory affidavits filed in court and signed by Mr McArdle. Mr McArdle could quite easily end up doing more jail time than Craig Thomson.

This only came to light last week because Chris McArdle started breach of contract proceedings against the Labor Party saying they have not paid him $35,000 he claims they said they would to represent Craig Thomson. In doing so Mr McArdle filed and signed an affidavit in the NSW Local Court dated the 24th July 2013. (Click here to read the affidavit on the Crikey website).

The claims made in this affidavit contradict a previous affidavit Mr McArdle filed and signed on the 20th March 2013 while representing Craig Thomson in the Federal Court of Australia before Justice Jessup. The bottom line is that Mr McArdle deliberately lied, deceived and withheld information in March from Justice Jessup in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. (Click here to read the affidavit)

*Background*

I have published a number of posts on this matter and it is finally starting to come to a head in a major way. I raised the possibility that Chris McArdle had lied in his March affidavit in the first post I published on the 21st April titled “Craig Thomson MP – Who’s paying his legal bills? Which union is it?” where I said:

“It is rather odd that Craig Thomson did not write the affidavit, as per above, himself given it outlines his and his wife’s financial position. The purpose of the affidavit is to assist his application, which was heard last week by Justice Jessup, to have the civil matters by FWA stayed until the criminal matters are heard and dealt with. Justice Jessup has reserved his judgement.”

“The affidavit implies a story of hardship with little money and large legal costs as a reason why the civil matters should be stayed. But this argument could not be supported if the TWU or someone else was paying his legal bills. If Craig Thomson had written the affidavit himself he would have had to declare that the TWU is paying his legal bills or lie in the affidavit which is a criminal offence.”

“Solution! Have his lawyer write the affidavit and if later caught out that the TWU or another union is paying the legal bills, then he can just say he never told his lawyer as he did not think it was relevant and his lawyer never misled the court. Problem solved.” (Click here to read the post)

In his latest July Affidavit Mr McArdle says that he was promised the $35,000 by NSW Labor Party secretary Sam Dastyari on the 21st February 2013 which predates his March Affidavit.

So the obvious question is why did Mr McArdle not mention the $35,000 in his March affidavit. The answer is simply, because it would not have helped his cause to have the civil charges stayed against Craig Thomson while the criminal charges were afoot. Mr McArdle had argued in his March affidavit how poor Craig Thomson was and how large his legal bills were. Well to Mr McArdle’s knowledge at the time, as the July affidavit shows, Craig Thomson’s legal bills were not as large as he said in his March affidavit as he was guaranteed at least $35,000 by the Labor Party to pay them which he knowingly left out of the March affidavit.

Lying in an affidavit is a criminal offence and Mr McArdle has clearly done that. As I have previously written in relation to his March affidavit: “Christopher McArdle who wrote the affidavit is representing Mr Thomson for the civil proceedings and says that he has already billed Mr Thomson ”about $50,000 in legal fees” yet makes no mention if he has been paid the money or if he has by who”.

At the time of writing that in his 20th March affidavit Mr McArdle had already invoiced the Labor Party $35,000 as his July affidavit shows. He was meant to be paid in two instalments, $25,000 seven days after the 21st of February and $10,000 ten days after that which he invoiced the Labor Party for on the 4th of March as the July affidavit says. So how can he say in his March affidavit that he had already billed Mr Thomson about $50,000 when in fact he had billed the Labor Party $35,000. Does that mean Craig Thomson was only billed $15,000? Or was the $50,000 on top of what he had billed the Labor Party? If that is the case then why is the $35,000 not in the affidavit?

This story has got plenty of legs and is starting to heat up and should be an election issue if the other political parties raised it. If you are new to the story then it is worth reading the other posts that I have done on it: (Click on the links below)

“Craig Thomson sets up slush fund but calls it a trust fund to pay his legal bills” 30/4/13

“Labor Party VP Tony Sheldon threatens defamation proceedings against KCA regarding Craig Thomson” 5/5/13

“Labor Party tries to bribe Craig Thomson with government money to go quietly” 19/5/13

*TWU and Tony Sheldon*

I stand by the post I published on Tony Sheldon and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) setting up a slush fund to pay Mr Thomson’s legal bills. In Mr McArdle’s July affidavit he says that he agreed to draft the invoices in his company name, Alanida Pty Ltd, and not his law firm’s name and the invoices would be drafted as specified by the second respondent (Sam Dastyari). I would love to see those invoices and whose name they are made out to. Maybe the TWU Slush fund?

It was reported on Friday in The Australian in relation to the $35,000 that Sam Dastyari said: 

“We made clear long ago that we would not pay any of Craig Thomson’s legal bills once he ceased to be a member of the ALP,” Mr Dastyari said

But Mr Dastyari would not confirm or deny specific claims by Mr McArdle that the powerful ALP official came to his office on two occasions to discuss precise arrangements to provide $35,000 towards Mr Thomson’s defence

“would also not comment on whether he had offered to find money to support Mr Thomson’s defence from sources other than the ALP”. (Click here to read more)

The above goes a long way to show why Tony Sheldon did not follow through with his threat to sue me for defamation as I suspect a lot of people in the Labor Party would know about the deal and Mr Sheldon is Vice President of the Party. Mr McArdle has been representing Mr Thomson since at least last October (2012) and would not have waited until this year to have fee payments guaranteed being paid. So who guaranteed them last year?

It also says in the July affidavit that Craig Thomson knew about the agreement to pay the $35,000 which helps explain why Craig Thomson did not file an affidavit in March as to his and his wife’s financial affairs and instead had Mr McArdle file an affidavit. Mr McArdle I suspect would regret doing that now.

You will not read the above post or others like it on this site anywhere else so please have a good read below and support it.

2013 KCA Election fundraiser

In the last week this site has raised $1420 (which is by far the best week ever). The target is $5,000 which would allow me to work full-time on the site for 4 weeks before the Federal Election. I tried Crowdfunding last year because it is accountable and everyone can see has much is being raised but it did not work, so I am now trying the direct way and just say how much I have raised.

Being full-time would not only allow me to write more posts and investigate them further but I would also be able to shoot video clips and interviews and push a lot harder.

If you would like to help it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation using the bank account details below or click on the button to donate via PayPal.

National Australia Bank
Account Name: Shane Dowling
BSB: 082 / 140
Account Number No: 122 243 908


768


----------



## noco (3 September 2013)

Thomson has failed to convince the courts that he is innocent. 

I would say his goose is well and truly cooked. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...thomsons-denials/story-fn9qr68y-1226709399266


----------



## drsmith (4 December 2013)

Craig Thomson and the red turbo spa room,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...d-turbo-spa-room/story-fn59nqld-1226774931499

What would the real Thommo think of this ?



> The former MP also allegedly used the alias Jeff Thomson when he paid for the escort named Tracey.


----------



## MrBurns (4 December 2013)

drsmith said:


> Craig Thomson and the red turbo spa room,
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...d-turbo-spa-room/story-fn59nqld-1226774931499
> 
> What would the real Thommo think of this ?




I heard they're closing in on Gillard now.


----------



## drsmith (22 January 2014)

The case against Craig Thomson has been in the court again this week.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ertainment-court/story-e6frg6nf-1226807648760


----------



## noco (22 January 2014)

drsmith said:


> The case against Craig Thomson has been in the court again this week.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ertainment-court/story-e6frg6nf-1226807648760




Yes Doc and it is not going too well for him ATM.

Poor man....away from home......all alone.....he just had to have some entertainment.


----------



## drsmith (22 January 2014)

noco said:


> Yes Doc and it is not going too well for him ATM.



Not well at all.



> The court heard on Wednesday the prosecution believed the question of whether Mr Thomson was authorised to use the credit cards for personal use was the sole outstanding ''live'' issue, as the mechanics of the charges and the transactions were no longer in dispute.
> 
> But Greg James, QC, for Mr Thomson, said his client's ''state of mind'' was also likely to be a point of difference when the parties made their closing submissions.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-entertainment-court-told-20140122-318r9.html


----------



## noco (23 January 2014)

drsmith said:


> Not well at all.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-entertainment-court-told-20140122-318r9.html





How can this "GALAH" claim he is not guilty with all this evidence stacked against him. 

Even his own half brother has given evidence against him.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-and-prostitutes/story-fnii5smp-1226808892070


----------



## drsmith (25 January 2014)

Michael Smith on the Craig Thomson trial last week.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...tters-that-kept-me-away-from-the-website.html

He confirms the Fairfax (SMH) story above.


----------



## drsmith (26 January 2014)

Richo was on the ball and commenting from out of politics was the most honest in what was said. Tash also clearly realised the score, but her defence of the theatre of Craig Thomson's speech in the House of Reps at that time is now condemning of the overall credibility of the majority there at that time. I'm sure that wasn't the intention.


----------



## drsmith (27 January 2014)

This late last week from the AFR is also interesting,



> Public release of documents unearthed during the investigation *was sought by the Coalition in *opposition through a Senate inquiry in 2012 *but Labor’s then chair of the committee, Gavin Marshall, blocked the release, *citing the potential for the *misinterpretation of the evidence and privacy concerns.
> 
> Now the court process has brought some of that evidence into the public realm. Among dozens of witness *statements and documents the *Melbourne Magistrates’ Court has released in recent days is a memorandum detailing $770 spent in May 2005 at a “dinner function”.
> 
> ...




http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...-gillard-but-not-about-craig-ok.html#comments

http://www.afr.com/p/national/labor_blocked_damning_evidence_release_jRsSk7GlMn6EbBGWOg5ujP


----------



## noco (28 January 2014)

This is how Thomson tried to cover up his hour or two of pleasure....I think his b*@l$ got hold of his brains. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...as-entertainment/story-fn59nqld-1226807966340


----------



## drsmith (28 January 2014)

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. 

Perhaps that's why Rob Oakeshott disappeared before dawn.



http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/01/letting-the-sun-shine-in-gillard-style.html

Meanwhile, the CMFEU looks to be in a bit of bother.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-...s-to-crime-figures-kickbacks-for-jobs/5221234


----------



## bigdog (28 January 2014)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-...3a-court-told-no-one-else-could-have-/5222554

*Craig Thomson fraud trial: Prostitute's witness statement reveals union official was 'regular client'*

A prostitute has revealed former Labor MP Craig Thomson was a "regular client" who always had a glass of champagne waiting for her.

In witness statements tended to the Melbourne Magistrates Court this evening, the escorts describe being shocked when the charges against Thomson made national headlines.

One prostitute who used the name Misty says she met the then-national secretary of the Health Services Union (HSU) on at least six occasions and provided sexual services.

"I have seen him on TV and in the media deny that he used the services of prostitutes," she said in her statement.

"He is lying and I am in no doubt that the Craig I performed a number of sexual services for over a period of time is Craig Thomson the politician."

She said she noticed he did not wear a wedding ring.

Her statement recalls how Thomson would always have a glass of champagne ready and often paid to extend her services, sometimes just to chat.

The court earlier heard there was a matrix of evidence that showed it was Thomson and no-one else who misused union credit cards.

Thomson faces 145 criminal charges of obtaining financial advantage and property by deception.

The charges relate to Thomson's alleged spending of HSU funds on brothels, escorts, pornography and other personal expenses while he was national secretary between 2002 and 2007.

He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

In closing arguments, prosecutors told the court that masses of evidence, including receipts phone records and bank statements, show that Thomson used HSU credit cards to spend thousands of dollars on escorts, brothels and pornography.

Using a specific event in Sydney in May 2005, prosecutors say records show Thomson checking into the Westin Hotel where phone calls were made from his room to an escort agency.

The court heard that $770 was charged to the union credit card later that night.


----------



## drsmith (28 January 2014)

How are the last threads of the defence looking ?



> But in summing up the case, prosecutor Lesley Taylor told the court it was "self-evidently absurd" that a written policy was necessary for "intelligent, experienced union officials, particularly for Craig Thomson" as a former lawyer, to be aware that he could not use his union funded credit cards for whatever he liked.
> 
> She said if Thomson "honestly believed there was some loophole somewhere," he would not have had to "partake in subterfuge" to mask his transactions.
> 
> ...




That closing argument will require some interesting gymnastics.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-...3a-court-told-no-one-else-could-have-/5222554


----------



## CanOz (28 January 2014)

There are some strange people in this world...


----------



## drsmith (18 February 2014)

D-Day today for Craig Thomson.

The summary of the defence was not that the alleged acts weren't committed, but they were allowed under HSU rules.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-18/craig-thomson-background/5265666


----------



## drsmith (18 February 2014)

*Guilty.*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-18/craig-thomson-verdict/5266468

Cathy Jackson,

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...g-thomson-found-guilty-of-defrauding-hsu.html


----------



## sptrawler (18 February 2014)

drsmith said:


> *Guilty.*
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-18/craig-thomson-verdict/5266468




There will be shudder through certain sections, now, I bet there are a few sickies pulled tommorrow.:1zhelp:


----------



## drsmith (18 February 2014)

Someone now doesn't look so silly running from the chamber as he did.



It will also be interesting to see how Craig Thomson's own words in parliament come back to haunt him. They'll certainly haunt the Labor Party for some time.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...e-craig-thomson-misleading-the-43rd-parl.html



Tony Windsor today I would suggest is very glad he's out of politics.


----------



## rumpole (18 February 2014)

I doubt he'll get the slammer. Good behaviour bond probably


----------



## drsmith (18 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> I doubt he'll get the slammer. Good behaviour bond probably



That would be seen as a miscarriage of justice in the eyes of the public, especially given his former public profile and his denials, both inside and outside the parliament.


----------



## drsmith (25 February 2014)

> PRIME Minister Tony Abbott will today call on the parliament to issue the apology on behalf of all MPs to the people accused of corruption by the convicted fraudster and disgraced former Labor MP.
> 
> The extraordinary move was flagged in a notice of motion tabled last night by the leader of the house Christopher Pyne.
> 
> And Labor will support the Coalition move, it emerged today.



I'm of the view that Craig Thomson himself should be hauled up before Parliament to apologise.

http://www.news.com.au/national/pri...pport-from-labor/story-fncynjr2-1226836427057


----------



## trainspotter (18 March 2014)

*OFF WITH HIS ARROGANT HEAD !*



> *DISGRACED former MP Craig Thomson should be jailed immediately for his arrogant and remorseless breach of trust, a court has heard.*
> Prosecutors today called for Thomson to be sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment for misusing Health Services Union funds to pay for, among other things, prostitutes.
> Lesley Taylor, SC, told the Melbourne Magistrates Court anything less than an immediate jail term would be “manifestly inadequate”.




http://www.news.com.au/national/vic...-prosecutors-say/story-fnii5sms-1226857984703


----------



## drsmith (18 March 2014)

Michael Smith is running a number of articles on Craig Thomson on his blog today.

Craig gets sentenced next Tuesday.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 March 2014)

drsmith said:


> Michael Smith is running a number of articles on Craig Thomson on his blog today.
> 
> Craig gets sentenced next Tuesday.




I reckon he'll get weekend detention.

He deserves more but he has friends in high places.

gg


----------



## AAA (25 March 2014)

Sentenced to 12 months, suspended after serving 3 months.


----------



## rumpole (25 March 2014)

AAA said:


> Sentenced to 12 months, suspended after serving 3 months.




There should have been a community service element. Like visiting his former members and telling them the evils of corruption.


----------



## dutchie (25 March 2014)

AAA said:


> Sentenced to 12 months, suspended after serving 3 months.




Pathetic


----------



## Julia (25 March 2014)

rumpole said:


> There should have been a community service element. Like visiting his former members and telling them the evils of corruption.



+1
The three months seems almost insultingly minimal but I guess in time the actual period will be forgotten but he will always be remembered as 'the corrupt Thomson who went to jail for stealing from some of the most disadvantaged workers in Australia'.

And then there's the reality that the total disgrace he has brought upon himself and the likelihood he'll never again be able to get decent employment is the greatest punishment of all.


----------



## burglar (25 March 2014)

Julia said:


> +1
> The three months seems almost insultingly minimal but I guess in time the actual period will be forgotten but he will always be remembered as 'the corrupt Thomson who went to jail for stealing from some of the most disadvantaged workers in Australia'.
> 
> And then there's the reality that the total disgrace he has brought upon himself and the likelihood he'll never again be able to get decent employment is the greatest punishment of all.




He's out again!!


----------



## Baldric (25 March 2014)

It appears he still thinks he is innocent.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/25/thomson-maintains-hes-innocent 

I wonder how much longer he can keep paying lawyers


----------



## Calliope (25 March 2014)

I doubt that he will ever set foot in jail. He is on bail pending appeal to be heard in November. He doesn't even have to report to the local police station while on bail, but he has to reside at the same NSW address. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ce-for-hsu-fraud/story-fn59noo3-1226863996174


----------



## Knobby22 (25 March 2014)

Julia said:


> +1
> The three months seems almost insultingly minimal but I guess in time the actual period will be forgotten but he will always be remembered as 'the corrupt Thomson who went to jail for stealing from some of the most disadvantaged workers in Australia'.
> 
> And then there's the reality that the total disgrace he has brought upon himself and the likelihood he'll never again be able to get decent employment is the greatest punishment of all.




+2  above also  I would've like to see him face the community.


----------



## dutchie (25 March 2014)

This low life has the audacity to say that he is innocent, still.

If we were playing by Union/Labor standards he would have a case. But in the real world he has been found guilty of being a scum bag (stealing from the poor).

He should be grateful for the absolutely inadequate sentence given by the Judge.

(I would be interested in the background of the Judge).

Is it obvious that I don't like Thomson and what he stands for?


----------



## Julia (25 March 2014)

If he carries on with these protestations of innocence despite the overwhelming evidence he might find his appeal actually delivers him a longer sentence.  His demeanour continues to be arrogant, confident, entirely without remorse.


----------



## trainspotter (25 March 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I reckon he'll get weekend detention.
> 
> He deserves more but he has friends in high places.
> 
> gg




I think it is a case of "Me ipsum iudicem everteret hircum" or "Turpitudinem et capram iudex pictures"


----------



## overhang (25 March 2014)

The slap on the wrist punishments for white collar crime infuriate me.  Only 3 months jail when he has wasted the courts time given all the evidence against him, I'm thinking if he pleaded guilty he may have got off with 12 months suspended sentence which is a disgrace.
I don't think he should be given community service, it's more appropriate for those who are remorseful about their crimes and want to give back to the community.


----------



## rumpole (25 March 2014)

trainspotter said:


> I think it is a case of "Me ipsum iudicem everteret hircum" or "Turpitudinem et capram iudex pictures"




Google translate:

Judge myself rooting for the buck "or" pictures of the judge's goat


----------



## trainspotter (25 March 2014)

rumpole said:


> Google translate:
> 
> *Judge* myself *rooting* for the buck "or" *pictures* of the judge's *goat*




Pretty close if you place the two latin phrases together


----------



## piggybank (25 March 2014)

dutchie said:


> This low life has the audacity to say that he is innocent, still.
> 
> If we were playing by Union/Labor standards he would have a case. But in the real world he has been found guilty of being a scum bag (stealing from the poor).
> 
> ...




I know how you feel dutchie - but then he isn't much different psychologically compared to his fellow MP's (and judges) who live in a vacumn with no contact with reality (real life). I know a couple of judges here in Melbourne who wouldn't be seen dead walking (or even shopping) in certain (class-less) suburbs. Unless any of their loved ones are bashed or even worse killed then they will never sentence those criminals to what they deserve. And to think I gave up 6 years of my life fighting for my country so pathetic people like Thomson & co just get a slap on the wrist - are these the people we are suppose to look up to? God help him if he ever crosses my path, I'll show him what justice means...


----------



## drsmith (26 March 2014)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh9KknyHhEk


----------



## SirRumpole (26 March 2014)

I'm very surprised the prosecution didn't appeal against the leniency of the sentence


----------



## drsmith (26 March 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm very surprised the prosecution didn't appeal against the leniency of the sentence



He's thrown three straight doubles but it's taking a very serious examination of the rules just to get him in the can.


----------



## sptrawler (26 March 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm very surprised the prosecution didn't appeal against the leniency of the sentence




I'm suprised a lawyer caught and convicted of theft, can find the funds to keep appealing, the unappealing.


----------



## Calliope (27 March 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm very surprised the prosecution didn't appeal against the leniency of the sentence




As you Sir, when you were plain rumpole, were Thomson's most staunch supporter, I am surprised that you haven't reverted to again giving him the "benefit of the doubt" pending his appeal hearing.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 March 2014)

Calliope said:


> As you Sir, when you were plain rumpole, were Thomson's most staunch supporter, I am surprised that you haven't reverted to again giving him the "benefit of the doubt" pending his appeal hearing.




He's now been tried and found guilty by people paid to listen to all the evidence, so I accept their judgement.

He's entitled to appeal which he has, and so is the prosecution, which they haven't.

Three months in gaol is too short. It should be 18, but maybe he could pay that off at $10,000 per month.

That would show how many friends he's got now.


----------



## trainspotter (17 December 2014)

And now we all can get some sleep:-



> SLEAZEBAG former politician Craig Thomson has been handed a get out of jail card, but will still be fined over a grubby cash-for-hookers scandal.
> The former member for Dobell, who this week was cleared of 49 charges of misappropriating Health Services Union funds, but found guilty of 13 theft charges, was today fined $25,000.
> Thomson appealed against 65 convictions of obtaining financial advantage by deception by misappropriating union funds during his term as national secretary between 2002 and 2007.




http://www.news.com.au/national/vic...h-services-union/story-fnii5sms-1227159394222


----------



## Tisme (18 December 2014)

I see once good friend of Tony Abbott, long serving and multi endorsed loyal Liberal, Peter Slipper is seeking redemption through the courts.

I also see, one  time endorsed Liberal Party's candidate for the electorate of Oxley, Pauline Hanson is making a tilt at the next election.


----------



## trainspotter (15 December 2015)

Ahhhhhhhh the relief is palatable ........



> The federal court has ordered Craig Thomson to pay almost half a million dollars in fines, compensation and interest for breaking multiple Fair Work laws and failing his duties as head of the Health Services Union.
> 
> Justice Christopher Jessup said the need for “deterrence” was “magnified” as he handed down the penalties to the disgraced former Labor MP in a written judgment this morning.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...u/news-story/159a200c595e0f1c165c9235fca78663


----------



## dutchie (15 December 2015)

trainspotter said:


> Ahhhhhhhh the relief is palatable ........
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...u/news-story/159a200c595e0f1c165c9235fca78663





Good to hear. The Unions always "look after"/screw the workers.......

Oops I mean the justice system always looks after the workers.


So the answer is yes, Craig Thompson will *finally* give us some relief (especially the HSU workers).


----------

