
Underbelly ..... "Whatever it takes" a nice montage (or is it real?)
#5
Posted 01 September 2011 - 01:24 PM
scotto, on 01 September 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:
Which
Hey! Lighten up. This is supposed to be the comical thread and I posted a comical image. There's plenty of budgie and "mincing poodle" parodies to throw up from the other side.

#6
Posted 02 September 2011 - 10:05 AM
icey, on 01 September 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:
Hey! Lighten up. This is supposed to be the comical thread and I posted a comical image. There's plenty of budgie and "mincing poodle" parodies to throw up from the other side.

sure..... but I just don't think the Thomson affair makes the grade.
I did like the picture, though. Thomson would fit into one of those period pieces quite nicely.
#9
Posted 09 September 2011 - 11:26 AM
#10
Posted 09 September 2011 - 12:06 PM
scotto, on 09 September 2011 - 11:26 AM, said:
Don't you think that's worthy of some attention?
It's hardly a good look, but fortunately lacks the sleaze and the magnitude of taking many $1000's of dollars from the trough to visit brothels, travel overseas, and buy shoes for the ex.
And (in a none too robust defence), if the Senator gets found guilty, what's she likely to get? A good behaviour bond? No potential for 12 months in the slammer for this allegedly depressed pilferer.
#11
Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:40 AM
icey, on 09 September 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:
And (in a none too robust defence), if the Senator gets found guilty, what's she likely to get? A good behaviour bond? No potential for 12 months in the slammer for this allegedly depressed pilferer.
Not to defend any possible fraudster, but the senator's offence actually happened while she was in the parliament, not years before she entered, and there's no question over the identity of the offender, as she has not contested that she actually did it. Doesn't that make it more relevant?
I'm aware of the depression defence, however I have to say that in all my years of dealing with sometimes severely depressed people, very few of them have ever broken laws and none have been charged with criminal offences. You need to understand that there are a lot of very skeptical mental health professionals sick of seeing this kind of defence used by high-profile people who get into trouble.
#12
Posted 13 September 2011 - 09:03 AM
scotto, on 13 September 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:
Counts for something, I must agree.
scotto, on 13 September 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:
A more refined form of "the devil made me do it" and worthy of a healthy dose of scepticism.
Yet talk of depression and medication in the Maggie's Court seems like a quintessential truth compared to Thomson's audacious claims of innocence in the light of phone records, credit card vouchers and authorised payment of credit card statements. Not that you were defending Julia's protected species of course.
#13
Posted 13 September 2011 - 11:03 AM
icey, on 13 September 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:
Yet talk of depression and medication in the Maggie's Court seems like a quintessential truth compared to Thomson's audacious claims of innocence in the light of phone records, credit card vouchers and authorised payment of credit card statements. Not that you were defending Julia's protected species of course.
Exactly.... without defending whoever might have done something wrong with the HSU credit card... claims of depression can be dressed up and made to sound very kosher in a court, however there's no serious clinical thinking that says being depressed causes criminal behaviour.
I must say though that her chief defence seems to be not depression but that she had a panic attack [her psychiatrist used the term 'anxiety attack' in court] in the supermarket, which would make someone behave strangely, but usually in a helpless or terrified way, rather than what was described by witnesses.