The Daily Wire: Craig Thomson: Do You Believe Him? - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 33 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »

Craig Thomson: Do You Believe Him?

#21 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 15 May 2012 - 04:08 PM

View Posticey, 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).


his big problem is that he was described as a 'thug'. Given his history, that could easily be construed by a court as true and therefore defamtion fails. Plus, he could lose a costs judgement against him and lose a lot of money.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#22 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 15 May 2012 - 04:08 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 15 May 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

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.


Someone recently expressed grave concerns over what a politician in such a stressful and hopeless situation might do. Love him or hate him, it would be a tragedy of a very high magnitude.

Nor would it provide any joy for Julia I might add..
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#23 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 15 May 2012 - 04:16 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 15 May 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

his big problem is that he was described as a 'thug'. Given his history, that could easily be construed by a court as true and therefore defamtion fails. Plus, he could lose a costs judgement against him and lose a lot of money.


Again, irrelevant.

Should Tony Abbott step down or not?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#24 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 15 May 2012 - 04:22 PM

View PostHDMC, on 15 May 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Again, irrelevant.

Should Tony Abbott step down or not?


You probably dont get the gravity of the accusations against Thomson. If you did or had any comprension of 'scale' within behaviour you wouldnt ask.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#25 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 15 May 2012 - 04:30 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 15 May 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

You probably dont get the gravity of the accusations against Thomson. If you did or had any comprension of 'scale' within behaviour you wouldnt ask.


The key word is "accusations".

It's not for you, me or anyone else to adjudicate on the "gravity" of any allegations. That's the court's job.


Otherwise you're skating dangerously close to losing the principle of the separation of powers. Is that what you really want?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#26 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 15 May 2012 - 04:36 PM

View PostHDMC, on 15 May 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

The key word is "accusations".

It's not for you, me or anyone else to adjudicate on the "gravity" of any allegations. That's the court's job.


Otherwise you're skating dangerously close to losing the principle of the separation of powers. Is that what you really want?


rubbish. since when was everything all find until the moment the jury says 'guilty'. The notion that Thomsons conduct is acceptable is abhorrent. All over forums we hear the demand for better behaviour from our pollies but as soon as one of 'your lot' is in trouble, you demand 'presumption of innocence'. AS identified earlier, that presumption ONLY applies in a court of law. other organisatiosn and groups make their own determinations. And certainly, the evidence against him is overwhelming. That is the kind of thinking that has led Labor MPs to be jailed with such frequency and for such serious crimes that you might as well build a wing just for the ALP.

If you want better standards then demand them. Just dont pretend that he has no guilt associated with him. That is about the only notion less beleivable than his idiotic explanation.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#27 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 15 May 2012 - 04:39 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 15 May 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:


If you want better standards then demand them. Just dont pretend that he has no guilt associated with him. That is about the only notion less beleivable than his idiotic explanation.


The Prime Minister is open to a Code of Conduct, the Opposition Leader is not.

Now we see why that may be.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#28 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 15 May 2012 - 04:40 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 15 May 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

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

That's the exact point - according the constitution, Thomson should not be asked to leave parliament.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#29 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 15 May 2012 - 04:48 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 15 May 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

You probably dont get the gravity of the accusations against Thomson. If you did or had any comprension of 'scale' within behaviour you wouldnt ask.

Gravity.. scale.. guilty of a crime.. ripping off an old man.. misusing union funds... they're all serious.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#30 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 15 May 2012 - 04:55 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 15 May 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

rubbish. since when was everything all find until the moment the jury says 'guilty'. The notion that Thomsons conduct is acceptable is abhorrent. All over forums we hear the demand for better behaviour from our pollies but as soon as one of 'your lot' is in trouble, ... explanation.

Gee. A lot of people have said the findings about Thomson are serious. If you'd stop thinking about 'you lot' and 'us lot' for a while you might become less frustrated that not everyone seems to agree with you.

So - Senator Fisher was presumed innocent until the judge said "guilty" - correct? She's guilty. But no conviction - so according to the letter of the law she can stay in parliament, so she did. Was there a furor? No, not much, despite the fact that she presented a totally bogus psych report to the court, which the judge flicked aside; a blatant attempt to avoid responsibility for her actions.

But Thomson - he is able to stay, by the letter of the same law - and this is not good enough for some. If you want to change the rules for one person, change them for all.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#31 User is offline   BOOBOO 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 243
  • Joined: 01-December 11

Posted 15 May 2012 - 05:04 PM

View Postscotto, on 15 May 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Gravity.. scale.. guilty of a crime.. ripping off an old man.. misusing union funds... they're all serious.

You need look no further than the recent comments of Paul Howes, Mark Latham and Peter Beattie to see that your argument holds no water even with those within or near to the ALP. A quick google should supply you with the relevent info. Your evidence to date has not supported the ripping off of an old man unless of course you mean the elderly HSU members.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#32 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 15 May 2012 - 05:15 PM

View Postscotto, on 15 May 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

That's the exact point - according the constitution, Thomson should not be asked to leave parliament.


"According to the constitution" (at least with respect to the crimminal record part), Thomson is not required by law to leave parliament.

According to the rules of this forum, I can say you look and smell like a weeping chancre, but there is no requirement by law that I leave. Quite rightly though, there are rules & regulations, and not to mention social mores which dictate that there are times to give someone a kick to kingdom come.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#33 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 15 May 2012 - 05:18 PM

View PostHDMC, on 15 May 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

The key word is "accusations".

It's not for you, me or anyone else to adjudicate on the "gravity" of any allegations. That's the court's job.

Otherwise you're skating dangerously close to losing the principle of the separation of powers. Is that what you really want?


You deny me the right to judge the gravity of allegations? What nonsense!

Surely you're not suggesting that Gillard's forgotten the separation of powers when she turfed Thomson across the floor?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#34 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 15 May 2012 - 05:22 PM

View Postscotto, on 15 May 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

So - Senator Fisher was presumed innocent until the judge said "guilty" - correct? She's guilty. But no conviction - so according to the letter of the law she can stay in parliament, so she did. Was there a furor? No, not much, despite the fact that she presented a totally bogus psych report to the court, which the judge flicked aside; a blatant attempt to avoid responsibility for her actions.


Just curious to know what have you got on the bogosity (OK ... bogusness), of a psych report tendered in evidence?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#35 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 15 May 2012 - 05:42 PM

View Posticey, on 15 May 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

Just curious to know what have you got on the bogosity (OK ... bogusness), of a psych report tendered in evidence?

What's generally known: a psychiatrist who did not know her prior to the court case theorising that she was having a panic attack, despite little or none of her behaviour conforming to the picture of a person having a panic attack.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#36 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 15 May 2012 - 05:48 PM

View PostBOOBOO, on 15 May 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

You need look no further than the recent comments of Paul Howes, Mark Latham and Peter Beattie to see that your argument holds no water even with those within or near to the ALP. A quick google should supply you with the relevent info. Your evidence to date has not supported the ripping off of an old man unless of course you mean the elderly HSU members.

Yes, very jolly. You should acquaint yourself with Mirabella's case. And I'm not an ALP acolyte, so I'm not really going to follow what those guys say.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#37 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 15 May 2012 - 05:49 PM

View Posticey, on 15 May 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

"According to the constitution" (at least with respect to the crimminal record part), Thomson is not required by law to leave parliament.

According to the rules of this forum, I can say you look and smell like a weeping chancre, but there is no requirement by law that I leave. Quite rightly though, there are rules & regulations, and not to mention social mores which dictate that there are times to give someone a kick to kingdom come.

Correct... required by law. Same as Fisher. No regs covering that either.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#38 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:02 PM

View Postscotto, 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?

Not unless the senator was convicted of an offence with a jail term one year or longer. An MP could go to jail for six months and still be eligible to sit when they are released. Whether they would be re-elected is another matter.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#39 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 16 May 2012 - 01:46 AM

View Postscotto, on 15 May 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:


Quote

icey, on 15 May 2012 - 05:22 PM, said: Just curious to know what have you got on the bogosity (OK ... bogusness), of a psych report tendered in evidence?


What's generally known: a psychiatrist who did not know her prior to the court case theorising that she was having a panic attack, despite little or none of her behaviour conforming to the picture of a person having a panic attack.


So professionally speaking, you have no real knowledge of the court hearing.

Is that correct?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#40 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 16 May 2012 - 02:35 AM

This HSU thing may have a few more surprises.



Quote

And, in yet another strange coincidence, Peter Slipper accuser James Ashby is using Kathy Jackson’s Sydney lawyers.

On the 14th May, on the Chris Smith programme on radio station 2GB, Kathy Jackson said that rumours of the Liberal party paying for her vast team of lawyers were rubbish. These lawyers, expensive lawyers, were all working for her for free – pro bono – she stated. Chris Smith, however, chose not to pursue the matter…

People can say whatever they like about Craig Thomson’s credibility and his explanation of events, however most people would find it totally unbelievable, and absolutely inconceivable, that these right wing lawyers, one of them from a Liberal Party aligned union busting “think tank”, would provide their services free to a union boss — especially one who pays herself a $270,000 salary.

So, it would seem there are many questions to be asked — and not just of Craig Thomson.

The mind boggles as to how someone who is a former employers’ barrister in their disputes with unions and was appointed to the AIRC by Tony Abbott as well as allegedly being a personal friend, is able to allegedly hack the emails of a Union official and then make a criminal complaint regarding this Union even while being the Vice President of the organisation actually in charge of investigating the same Union — as well as being the partner of the Union whistleblower most deeply enmeshed in the whole affair, who is soon to speak at a function for a union busting Liberal Party-aligned think tank, and who is being represented in all her actions against the union for free by the Liberal Party’s favourite lawyers — and yet none of this is widely reported in the media, or seemingly of any major interest to police?


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

0

Share this topic:


  • 33 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »


Fast Reply