- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
Apparently for brothels there is a requirement that they be kept for 5-7 years depending on the state.
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.
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.
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.
While it suits Craig Thomson and Labor to make the detail as complex as possible, it remains very simple in principal.You make a fair point, but it could be more complex than you think.
It's obvious that he cannot.I hope he can answer those questions.
So guilty until proven innocent then......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......
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
So guilty until proven innocent then......
Guilty that his HSU credit card was used for improper purposes ?So guilty until proven innocent then......
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.
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 was not news to me, he has said this before (in a brief interview a week or so ago I think).
Because Anna Burke is the Deputy Speaker.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
Yes, you're quite right.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.
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.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).
Brad, that's pretty silly. Tony Abbott does not stand accused of any impropriety.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
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
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......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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?