Will Craig Thomson finally give us some relief?

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.

"When [Mr Thomson] said 'Get the tapes, get the tapes', both my wife and I were rolling around on the floor laughing," said Mr Seage, who is a previous consultant to the Adult Business Association in New South Wales, which represents some of the country's biggest bordellos.

"I'd say only at the most 5 per cent of brothels would have CCTV, and in terms of how long they would be kept, nowhere near six years.

"I think it’s a false allegation."

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 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

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

joea

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!

Will Craig Thomson finally give us some relief?

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency