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

Jump to content

  • 33 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »

Craig Thomson: Do You Believe Him?

#41 User is offline   HDMC 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 03:34 AM

View Posticey, on 15 May 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

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?



You're entitled to an opinion, nothing more. Judgement, and more to the point, punishment is a matter for the courts. Not you, me, Abbott or anyone else - the courts.


As distasteful as the allegations are, there's a principle at stake here - should a Parliament be allowed to vote to expel a member on the strength of accusations alone? And even if convicted in a civil case, if it's not affecting his job as a parliamentarian?

Suppose Labor had a couple of more seats. Should they be able to get someone to allege indecent assault against Abbott (it's happened before in his case), win a vote on the floor, and rid themselves of him?



By the way, despite your colourful turn of phrase, Thomson resigned.
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

#42 User is offline   scotto 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 06:31 AM

View Posticey, on 16 May 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

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

Is that correct?

Years of knowledge treating anxiety disorders including panic attack. The list of supposed symptoms had by the senator published at the time of the case. So, a significant amount of knowledge. And the judge's statements about the psych defense.

So no. I do not have 'no real knowledge.'
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

#43 User is offline   scotto 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 06:39 AM

View PostHDMC, on 16 May 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

This HSU thing may have a few more surprises.

I've read that article and some of the facts are troubling - Abbott's man is also Jackson's man? Abbott's man with illicit access to personal emails of HSU people? A FWA officer starting the corruption complaint based on access to these emails?

Another turn of the wheel. When will it all end?
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

#44 User is offline   scotto 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 02:20 PM

Looks like there's some of what Thomson says that we must believe.

There's a much smaller sum that seems to be in some kind of grey zone, but overall his actions regarding election funding are about 95% clean.
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

#45 User is offline   HDMC 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 04:03 PM

LOL



Quote

Despite challenging Labor to reject the “tainted” vote of sidelined MP Craig Thomson, Mr Hockey said the Coalition would find it difficult to refuse Mr Thomson's vote if it was offered in support of a motion of no-confidence in the government.
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

#46 User is offline   longweekend58 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 04:13 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.


The constitution permits the parliament to vote and expell a member at its discretion.
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

#47 User is offline   longweekend58 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 04:15 PM

View PostHDMC, on 16 May 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

You're entitled to an opinion, nothing more. Judgement, and more to the point, punishment is a matter for the courts. Not you, me, Abbott or anyone else - the courts.


As distasteful as the allegations are, there's a principle at stake here - should a Parliament be allowed to vote to expel a member on the strength of accusations alone? And even if convicted in a civil case, if it's not affecting his job as a parliamentarian?

Suppose Labor had a couple of more seats. Should they be able to get someone to allege indecent assault against Abbott (it's happened before in his case), win a vote on the floor, and rid themselves of him?



By the way, despite your colourful turn of phrase, Thomson resigned.


Parliament is permitted to do so. It isnt as if the Thomson allegations are frivolous or without significant evidence. If parliament decided to expel Thomson it would be fair and reasonable. it wont of course soleyl because the govt would fall, but putting that to one side, it would still be just.
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

#48 User is offline   longweekend58 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 04:19 PM

View Postscotto, on 16 May 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Looks like there's some of what Thomson says that we must believe.

There's a much smaller sum that seems to be in some kind of grey zone, but overall his actions regarding election funding are about 95% clean.


Isnt it a bit desperate to claim that out of the 180 things he has done wrong, the AEC has found a few things that he HASNT done wrong??? And you are forgetting the questions they still have which could be criminal acts. They are certainly against the electoral laws if proven.

The desperation is such that if an enquiry cleared him of the Beaumont murders, you'd be happy.
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

#49 User is offline   icey 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 04:33 PM

View PostHDMC, on 16 May 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:



Further LOL's for this one (from the previously cited article):

Quote

"I think unless they're cleared, I think it would be a mistake to re-endorse him, that's for sure," Mr Crean said.


Sorry, who was it that was discussing this guy's future tilt at another term under an any party's banner?

Maybe Crean spoke for himself and was indicating his own recent change of heart, belatedly persuaded on account of a ranga line that's been crossed.
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

#50 User is offline   scotto 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 04:50 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 16 May 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

The constitution permits the parliament to vote and expell a member at its discretion.

Permits, but does not require.
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

#51 User is offline   scotto 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 04:58 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 16 May 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

Isnt it a bit desperate to claim that out of the 180 things he has done wrong, the AEC has found a few things that he HASNT done wrong??? And you are forgetting the questions they still have which could be criminal acts. They are certainly against the electoral laws if proven.

The desperation is such that if an enquiry cleared him of the Beaumont murders, you'd be happy.

I'm not desperate - you mistake anyone who doesn't agree with you as 'them,' as I've pointed out before - and you're foolish to claim that I want wrongdoing covered up. Don't forget, if HSU money has been ripped off, some of it was mine.

In fact, you seem a bit desperate about this yourself. Do you feel like something is slipping away?

Let's see - yes, there has been a finding of misusing. Have you read the FWA report and can you tell me exactly what these relate to - rather than perserverate about the "180 things?" And perhaps - only perhaps - there will be criminal matters brought to court. If he's committed fraud, I would like to see him in gaol. Or at least with a conviction recorded.

In the meantime, perhaps you should read the article linked in another post with some fascinating background on the major players in the HSU saga aside from Thomson.

Just to make it clear: I'm really saddened by the prospect of someone in Thomson's or Williamson's position having ripped off an union, just as I would be saddened if it came to light that there were illegal actions by, say Abbott or Liberal figures in stirring up this or the Slipper affair. There is no reason to be happy that these things happen, if that turns out to be the case.

By the way, it seems Ashby has dropped some of his action against Peter Slipper in the civil court.
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

#52 User is offline   longweekend58 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 05:06 PM

View Postscotto, on 16 May 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

Permits, but does not require.


Im sure that made a lot more sense INSIDE your head. How can the constitution ever REQUIRE parliament to expel someone? It just had to codify the reasons to be expelled and it happens regardless of parliament and guess what! It did.
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

#53 User is offline   scotto 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 05:06 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 16 May 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Parliament is permitted to do so. It isnt as if the Thomson allegations are frivolous or without significant evidence. If parliament decided to expel Thomson it would be fair and reasonable. it wont of course soleyl because the govt would fall, but putting that to one side, it would still be just.

And the senator who is guilty of assault?
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

#54 User is offline   longweekend58 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 05:41 PM

View Postscotto, on 16 May 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

And the senator who is guilty of assault?


do you think in black and white only or have you heard of all the shades in between? 'assault' has such a variety of meanings that it can even include not touching someone.

Why do you think that not ONE MP from any party has even considered censuring her, nevermind removing her? Perhaps because they have a sense of balance and perspective that clearly eludes you?
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

#55 User is offline   scotto 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 05:45 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 16 May 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

do you think in black and white only or have you heard of all the shades in between? 'assault' has such a variety of meanings that it can even include not touching someone.

Why do you think that not ONE MP from any party has even considered censuring her, nevermind removing her? Perhaps because they have a sense of balance and perspective that clearly eludes you?

Well, some are saying there should be tighter and more formal rules around this kind of thing. In fact, you're wrong - Robb Oakshott has suggested that the senator might have to go if there was one rule for all.

Can you specify the things that you think Thomson should be censured for?
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

#56 User is offline   scotto 

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

Posted 16 May 2012 - 05:47 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 16 May 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

Im sure that made a lot more sense INSIDE your head. How can the constitution ever REQUIRE parliament to expel someone? It just had to codify the reasons to be expelled and it happens regardless of parliament and guess what! It did.

I think you're in the wrong head. What did?
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

#57 User is offline   HDMC 

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

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:13 AM

View Postscotto, on 16 May 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

Well, some are saying there should be tighter and more formal rules around this kind of thing. In fact, you're wrong - Robb Oakshott has suggested that the senator might have to go if there was one rule for all.

Can you specify the things that you think Thomson should be censured for?




There may not even be a case to answer.



Quote

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA'S legal action against Craig Thomson could be thrown out because the statute of limitations has been exceeded, according to two leading workplace lawyers.

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

#58 User is offline   EvanParsons 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 16-January 11

Posted 17 May 2012 - 08:15 AM

As for Thomson's supposed witnesses who are meant to exonerate him:
http://www.theaustra...3-1226358228717
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

#59 User is offline   scotto 

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

Posted 17 May 2012 - 08:22 AM

View PostEvanParsons, on 17 May 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

As for Thomson's supposed witnesses who are meant to exonerate him:
http://www.theaustra...3-1226358228717

Yeah, Thomson's conspiracy defence is looking a bit shabby. It's the old truism: "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof." Again, I'm struck by the fact that a guy who says he was warned he could be set up did not take better notes of what was going on and who he was working with.

Unfortunately though, The Aus has tainted itself with its partisan reporting so I'd not place much faith in their report until I see it verified.

Given also the assessment by lawyers that the time has likely elapsed on the whole affair, we may be looking at a big fat nothing in terms of outcomes.
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

#60 User is offline   EvanParsons 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 16-January 11

Posted 17 May 2012 - 08:55 AM

Gillard & Crean hinted yesterday that Thomson won't get preselection again for Dobell, which tells you that even they know that the man is as dodgy as anything.
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
  • 5
  • Last »


Fast Reply