[EvanParsons]

It defies logic that Thomson could have been set up in such a way, with somebody else supposedly being able to sneak into his hotel room, steal the mobile phone & the credit card, forge the signature on the receipts etc.
His interview with Oakes did him no favours.

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

[scotto]

Yeah, it's all starting to get a little too fantastic. The thing that I wondered is why he hasn't said this before and taken the complaint to the police. If it's true we'll see a miniseries about it in a year, maybe we'll see one anyway.

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 15 May 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

Yeah, it's all starting to get a little too fantastic. The thing that I wondered is why he hasn't said this before and taken the complaint to the police. If it's true we'll see a miniseries about it in a year, maybe we'll see one anyway.

Who needs a mini-series while we've got reality TV in the form of MSM coverage of this sordid tale?

He has apparently "said it before" according to the FWA report (para 353).

Quote

Mr Thomson submits that, had I interviewed Mr Struan Robertson, I would have become ‘aware of threats made against Mr Thomson by at least one other official of the HSU who, in 2004, threatened to ruin Mr Thomson’s life, to destroy his political ambitions and to “set him up with a bunch of hookers and ... ruin him.”’ Mr Thomson has not, however, provided any evidence in support of this submission in the form of a statement or statutory declaration from Mr Robertson, or indeed from any other individual who may be able to verify this submission.

The ridiculously strong chain of evidence is all the more telling if Thomson was on the alert because of a threatened hooker set up.

Thomson's presumption of innocence has quite correctly been raised, particularly by anybody with a lean to the left. Others have pointed out though that such presumption is at law (in respect to a criminal charge), but such a standard does not apply in other arenas. Thomson's protracted and indeed, protected presence on the government's team was Gillard's badge of shame and eventually, presumption of innocence or not he got the flick. It just should have been mch, much sooner as I've said before.

That he remains a sitting member taints the institution and all honest politicians.

To the title of the thread, no I do not believe Thomson, and I'd challenge anyone to declare that they really do.

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

[icey]

Craig Thomson Resign Now (PETITION)

Quote

Mr. Thomson has now been stood down from the Labor Party by the Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Well if he is not good enough for the Prime Minister and the Labor Party then why should the people of Dobell and the wider community have him as their representative?

We deserve better representation then this.

We need the Federal Parliament to call on Mr. Thomson to resign from Federal Parliament immediately.

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 15 May 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Who needs a mini-series while we've got reality TV in the form of MSM coverage of this sordid tale?

He has apparently "said it before" according to the FWA report (para 353).



The ridiculously strong chain of evidence is all the more telling if Thomson was on the alert because of a threatened hooker set up.

Thomson's presumption of innocence has quite correctly been raised, particularly by anybody with a lean to the left. Others have pointed out though that such presumption is at law (in respect to a criminal charge), but such a standard does not apply in other arenas. Thomson's protracted and indeed, protected presence on the government's team was Gillard's badge of shame and eventually, presumption of innocence or not he got the flick. It just should have been mch, much sooner as I've said before.

That he remains a sitting member taints the institution and all honest politicians.

To the title of the thread, no I do not believe Thomson, and I'd challenge anyone to declare that they really do.

I didn't know he has claimed this before. If so, he's failed to leave a good enough paper trail about this to protect himself, which anyone with a brain and access to a lawyer could have done. I guess we could take this as an indication of how things were done in the HSU, but it's way to murky to make a judgement like this.

He does have a presumption of innocence, you're right, but in civil court it's a 'balance of probablility', so far as I understand it, so I think his goose is cooked unless he can come up with some compelling evidence to support his story.

I really don't think it's right call for his ejection from parliament; this is just heat without light being generated by the Libs. For example, should not the Liberal senator with a recent criminal conviction also be ejected?

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

[HDMC]

scotto, on 15 May 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

I really don't think it's right call for his ejection from parliament; this is just heat without light being generated by the Libs. For example, should not the Liberal senator with a recent criminal conviction also be ejected?

Thomson will be dealt with by the court. But what about the bigger picture? The thing that bothers me if we go down this track, is what happens when a majority government wants to get rid of, say, an opposition leader? Have someone make an accusation, vote along party lines, problem solved.

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

[scotto]

HDMC, on 15 May 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

Thomson will be dealt with by the court. But what about the bigger picture? The thing that bothers me if we go down this track, is what happens when a majority government wants to get rid of, say, an opposition leader? Have someone make an accusation, vote along party lines, problem solved.

Yes, that's exactly the problem that would emerge.

I do recall that some years ago JWH introduced a code of conduct for his ministers - a number of whom were promptly despatched for breaches. The answer? He got rid of the code.

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 15 May 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

I really don't think it's right call for his ejection from parliament; this is just heat without light being generated by the Libs. For example, should not the Liberal senator with a recent criminal conviction also be ejected?

Firstly, Thomson's different on account of the nature of the offences, the number of the offences and the dollar figure related to the offences. On that basis though, where does one set the bar? It would be tricky to define, yet any knucklehead eventually figures that Thomson crossed the line without being able to pinpoint the line's exact location.

Secondly, hokey-pokey Fisher had no conviction recorded, and that is highly relevant to her status in that she has no criminal record. Neither does Thomson to date, but the FWA findings are certainly far more than mere aspersions (or "he said" "she said" accusations).

On codes of conduct; a great idea. Up here in QLD we have "can do" Newman pledging better standards than under the now decimated ALP nest.

Quote

Not only does Newman's law relate directly to ministers performing their portfolio duties, it also extends to how they behave personally and even before they earned a Cabinet pay packet.

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 15 May 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

Firstly, Thomson's different on account of the nature of the offences, the number of the offences and the dollar figure related to the offences. On that basis though, where does one set the bar? It would be tricky to define, yet any knucklehead eventually figures that Thomson crossed the line without being able to pinpoint the line's exact location.

Secondly, hokey-pokey Fisher had no conviction recorded, and that is highly relevant to her status in that she has no criminal record. Neither does Thomson to date, but the FWA findings are certainly far more than mere aspersions (or "he said" "she said" accusations).

On codes of conduct; a great idea. Up here in QLD we have "can do" Newman pledging better standards than under the now decimated ALP nest.

Of course the offences are different - that's part of the problem in having a rigid code, no?

So, just becuase a judge was soft on her, she gets a pass? I think you'll find that the verdict was "guilty". That means she committed a criminal offence, doesn't it? And, on that topic, as things stand Thomson will never have a criminal record on this issue.

If you're going to call for one person to be ejected, you have to consider them all. And we haven't even gotten onto Mirabella. You know, how she's in court, unlike Thomson.

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

[HDMC]

Should Abbott now step aside?

Quote

A PROMINENT union figure is suing Opposition Leader Tony Abbott for defamation over comments he made at a Master Builders Association conference earlier this year, claiming he has been "gravely injured" by his public portrayal as a construction site thug. Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union assistant secretary John Setka, who was cleared of an assault charge in February after a case brought against him by the former building and construction watchdog collapsed, lodged a claim for unspecified, aggravated damages against Mr Abott today in the Victorian Supreme Court.

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

[scotto]

HDMC, on 15 May 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Should Abbott now step aside?

Definitely!

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

[Frogman]

I think you will find that the circumstances surrounding this are completely different and that Tony doesn't have to step down because his character is not in doubt and besides its just a union official anyway they don't really count as proper people and what do you mean morally inconsistent, Tony has been very consistent in saying that this carbon tax is wrong and bad and so is the mining tax and so is the nbn and so are the school halls and so are the pink batts and so its the election promises and so is the budget and so is Craig Thompson and so is Bob Brown and so is the Greens and blah blah blah

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

[scotto]

Such cynicism <shakes head>....

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 15 May 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Of course the offences are different - that's part of the problem in having a rigid code, no?

We are agreed on both points.

scotto, on 15 May 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

So, just becuase a judge was soft on her, she gets a pass?

Just as a judge would go soft on you or I as (presumably) first offenders of a not too serious kind. Lest some foolish government employee lose his lifetime career because of one foolish mistake after, say, a night on the turps or some scary panic atatck.

This looting barrister remains free to practice for just such good reasons - you can think of the judge as soft if you like. As the article noted, de minimus non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles).

scotto, on 15 May 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

I think you'll find that the verdict was "guilty". That means she committed a criminal offence, doesn't it? And, on that topic, as things stand Thomson will never have a criminal record on this issue.

Quote

An Adelaide court has found Liberal senator Mary Jo Fisher guilty of assault but not guilty of shoplifting.Magistrate Kym Boxall did not record a conviction, so the senator is assured of retaining her place in the Upper House of Federal Parliament.

Yes indeed, the court found that the offence was committed. As for "no conviction recorded" (NCR), I was interested to look up the ramifications. South Australia has a "Spent Convictions" Act that might encompass the NCR. In glorious Queensland:

Quote

I pleaded guilty and the magistrate said no conviction recorded. I don't have a criminal record, do I?
No (with some exceptions), but you have still been charged with breaking the law and you have still been convicted, because a conviction means that the court has found you guilty or the court has accepted your plea of guilty.

• generally, you can say you don't have any convictions
• if you're answering questions about whether you have any criminal history/criminal record, make sure you fully understand the question
• you could be asked questions about whether you have ever been charged with breaking the law, or whether you have been found guilty, pleaded guilty or been convicted. These questions are different from asking if you have a conviction recorded
• for some types of jobs/applications (e.g. Blue Card), even if you don't have a conviction recorded you still have to tell the person asking about being found guilty/pleading guilty in a court

I'm no lawyer, but doesn't Thomson's trail of misdeeds leave the possibility of a fraud charge, theft or similar?

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

[icey]

Frogman, on 15 May 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

I think you will find that the circumstances surrounding this are completely different and that Tony doesn't have to step down because his character is not in doubt and besides its just a union official anyway they don't really count as proper people and what do you mean morally inconsistent, Tony has been very consistent in saying that this carbon tax is wrong and bad and so is the mining tax and so is the nbn and so are the school halls and so are the pink batts and so its the election promises and so is the budget and so is Craig Thompson and so is Bob Brown and so is the Greens and blah blah blah

First scotto and now the frog.

We are in complete agreement wise frog.

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 15 May 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

I'm no lawyer, but doesn't Thomson's trail of misdeeds leave the possibility of a fraud charge, theft or similar?

Well... no charges have been laid, and the FWA report was specifically in relation to possible civil violations. So I guess technically that means "no".

And Fisher has no conviction on the books, but has been found guilty of a crime - so as you point out, it depends which question you ask, doesn't it?

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

[longweekend58]

It was interesting to see that nobody believes him. and really, how could you? The tale is so idiotic and difficult to execute and comes at such a convenient time that it is totally unbelivable. You almost wonder at the intelligence of a man with such a destroyed public reputation that he would choose a course of action that can only make matters worse.

My only concern is that this might actually represent a break down in his mental health. It certianly isnt a clever thing to be saying.

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

[icey]

HDMC, on 15 May 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Should Abbott now step aside?

Quote

A PROMINENT union figure is suing Opposition Leader Tony Abbott for defamation over comments he made at a Master Builders Association conference earlier this year, claiming he has been "gravely injured" by his public portrayal as a construction site thug.

Quote

Mr Setka is also suing the Australian News Channel, which broadcast Mr Abbott's comments on Sky News.

Not saying it's apples and apples, but I'm reminded of a prominent ex-union guy who took a shot at defamation action against not just his ex-employer, but also the Fairfax press. Gave him braagging rights for a while, in fact, even after he withdrew the complaint (when he told anyone who'd listen that he'd won the case).

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

[longweekend58]

scotto, on 15 May 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Well... no charges have been laid, and the FWA report was specifically in relation to possible civil violations. So I guess technically that means "no".

And Fisher has no conviction on the books, but has been found guilty of a crime - so as you point out, it depends which question you ask, doesn't it?

Not according to the constitution - which is what is important here.

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

[HDMC]

icey, on 15 May 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

Not saying it's apples and apples, but I'm reminded of a prominent ex-union guy who took a shot at defamation action against not just his ex-employer, but also the Fairfax press. Gave him braagging rights for a while, in fact, even after he withdrew the complaint (when he told anyone who'd listen that he'd won the case).

Not the point though is it?

Civil action is pending, why shouldn't Abbott abide by the same standards he expects Thomson and Slipper to observe?

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