[icey]

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

Might we have Abbot and Bishop in that pic as well?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

scotto, on 01 September 2011 - 10:13 AM, said:

Might we have Abbot and Bishop in that pic as well?

Nah! They wouldn't cosy up to Thomson like that. They'd smell a rat.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

icey, on 01 September 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

Nah! They wouldn't cosy up to Thomson like that. They'd smell a rat.

I'm surprised.... they can handle not only their own stench but that of Joyce, Heffernan, Reith....

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

scotto, on 01 September 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:

I'm surprised.... they can handle not only their own stench but that of Joyce, Heffernan, Reith....

Which brothel restaurant charge for $2400 did the named MP's find on their credit card statements before authorising payment?

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.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

icey, on 01 September 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

Which brothel restaurant charge for $2400 did the named MP's find on their credit card statements before authorising payment?

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.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[HDMC]

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

A "grumpy old man" in every sense of the meaning. And rude to boot.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

icey, on 06 September 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

A "grumpy old man" in every sense of the meaning. And rude to boot.

But look, while all this crap was going on, a Lib senator is actually on trial for theft and assault.

Don't you think that's worthy of some attention?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

scotto, on 09 September 2011 - 11:26 AM, said:

But look, while all this crap was going on, a Lib senator is actually on trial for theft and assault.

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.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

icey, on 09 September 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

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.

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.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

scotto, on 13 September 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:

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?

Counts for something, I must agree.

scotto, on 13 September 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:

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.

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.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

icey, on 13 September 2011 - 09:03 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.

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.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.