Will Craig Thomson finally give us some relief?

[Garpal Gumnut]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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..."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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..."

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]

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

 

[Calliope]

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.

As respected Brisbane QC Tony Morris pointed out in The Spectator Australia this week, the presumption of innocence is a legal rule about the burden of proof in criminal trials. It exists only within the context of a criminal trial and can be understood only as an aspect of the laws governing criminal evidence and procedure. As the author of the canonical text on the law of evidence, Rupert Cross, says: "When it is said that an accused person is presumed to be innocent, all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt."

None of this would come as a surprise to a competent lawyer, although it is apparently lost on the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon. A proper understanding of the presumption of innocence tells us several things about the debate, beyond what it reveals about the venality of this government.

Since the presumption of innocence applies only to the criminal law, it has no relevance to civil claims. At the moment, the claims against Thomson and Slipper are civil claims only: in Thomson's case, the findings of the Nassios investigation which, Fair Work Australia has announced, will give rise to civil proceedings, and in Slipper's case, the Ashby sexual harassment claims.

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