There are calls for Craig Thomson to stand down over the fact a FWA report has found that he misused some $500,000 of members money during his time as National Secretary of the HSU

Let's be clear I'm not asserting any of what he has said is true, only that it's reasonable

This $500k is made up of the following:

[list bull-blueball]

$6k on hookers[list bull-blueball]

$200k to hire two staff members to work on his 2007 election campaign
[list bull-blueball]

$100k of "unexplained" cash advances
[list bull-blueball]

$200k of direct expenditure on his 2007 election campaign

Now let's look at each of these in isolation

$100k of cash advances unaccounted for:
He claims he did provide receipts / explanations for this expenditure.

Belinda Or (The financial controller of the office) also stated in her interviews with FWA that this was the practice.

Yet the current management of HSU claims there are no receipts when FWA asked to see them.

Kathy Jackson is currently the National Secretary of the HSU and took over the job from Craig Thomson

It is reasonable to accept that Thomson provided receipts (confirmed by independent witness) and that KJ was in the best position to have made those receipts disappear.

Claims of hiring two staff and spending $200k of direct expenses is his bid to win Dobell in 2007

First of all CT conceeds that this amount of money was spent for this purpose so the real issue lies around whether or not he was authorised to make this expenditure

The rules of the HSU are pretty clear on this but bascially what they say is the National Secretary is authorised to spend money on the general administration of the Union providing he has permission from the Union Council, the Executive or the Union President between meetings of these two councils.

FACT:  The Council of the HSU National Executive is controlled by Michael Williamson.  The representation of the Council is determined proportioanally by the size of the memberships of the respective state branches.  MW's branch held the majority of the members, therefore his branch provided most of the money to the National Office and, as such, had control of the National Office Council

MW was also the National President with the capacity to give the National Secretary permission to expense money for any purpose on behalf of the national union

MW told Craig Thomson to spend "Whatever he needs to" to win the seat of Dobell.  It was a political imperative that CT won that seat and that the Union movement do whatever it could to get John Howard out of government

The ENTIRE Executive of the union knew this was the case, the ENTIRE Council of the union knew this was the case, the NSW ALP leant on MW heavily to ensure that this was the case, Unions NSW leant on MW heavily to ensure this was the case and the ACTU leant on MW heavily to ensure this was the case.  This was the case.

It is reasonable to assume that Craig Thomson as National Secretary of the HSU was authorised to spend that $400k on getting himself elected to the seat of Dobell in 2007

Craig Thomson spent union money securing the services of hookers

There are a few issues around this.

Is it reasonable to assume that Marco Bolano would have threatened people in this manner?

Bolano is well know as Kathy Jackson's hard man, there is probably not a person involved in ALP politics in Victoria who he hasn't threatened with something or another at various times.  Hell he's even been known to go the punch a few times during union meetings.  The guy's a thug and a bully and we can reasonable assume he would have issued threats of this nature

But who could pull off such an elaborate conspiracy?

Charging this onto a credit card - easy - all you need is the number and a willing merchant - I know in my place of work if I wanted to get the bosses credit card number it would be a simple matter of spending two seconds looking for it.  Same for the drivers licence number, in fact, you provide this number to you employer when you apply to get the credit card as part of the identification requirements.

It's reasonable to assume KJ/MB has access to these details

It's reasonable to assume it would be relatively easy to find a merchant who ran escort / hooker services and convince them to put through $6k in charges to some credit card numbers, hell even give them the licence number of the person who's name is on the card in case it is ever questioned.  You might be a regular client and brothel owners are hardly known for their scrupples ...

How about those phone records - pushing reality there surely?

Well not really, any half compentent IT professional could clone a SIM card, it isn't that hard.  The fact is the National Office of the HSU isn't an office at all - it's has space in a few of the state branches of the union and only employs 2/3 staff members.

They don't have their own IT systems, they piggy back off the existing structures of the state Branches.  Do you know where the National Office of the HSU was located at the time of all this?  Would you believe the office of the Victorian Number 3 branch (which would later merge with NSW / Vic Number 1 to form HSUEast) - and who was Secretary of Vic No 3 at the time?  Why none other than Kathy Jackson!

The fact is that branch issued CT with his phone, think about that for a minute, they had his phone before they gave it to him for his use as National Secretary.

Michael Williamson owns the IT company which provides IT services to both Vic No 3 branch, NSW Branch and the National Office of the HSU - the man had an army of IT professionals at his disposal.

It is not unreasonable to assume that CT's SIM card could have been cloned prior to him receiving the phone for his use as National Secretary

All in all the case Craig Thomson has presented litters the assertions in the FWA report with so much reasonable doubt they become unreasonable IMNSHO

[highlight]It is not unreasonable to assume that CT's SIM card could have been cloned prior to him receiving the phone for his use as National Secretary[/highlight


Best you do some research on sim cloning.

]

angeleyes wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

It is not unreasonable to assume that CT's SIM card could have been cloned prior to him receiving the phone for his use as National Secretary Best you do some research on sim cloning.

If you've got the SIM card it's easy - you just take a copy of the card

"GSM SIM cards are actually copied by removing the SIM card and placing a device between the handset and the SIM card and allowing it to operate for a few days and extracting the KI, or secret code"

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 12:09pm:

angeleyes wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 12:02pm: It is not unreasonable to assume that CT's SIM card could have been cloned prior to him receiving the phone for his use as National Secretary Best you do some research on sim cloning. If you've got the SIM card it's easy - you just take a copy of the card "GSM SIM cards are actually copied by removing the SIM card and placing a device between the handset and the SIM card and allowing it to operate for a few days and extracting the KI, or secret code"

Also it was just a theory said thomson. He googled for ways it could be done and that was only 1 of the ways.

Nice post PolitcalReality BTW.

SOB

I believe there were 181 breaches found by the FWA.

Your attempt to use the amounts to trivialise this issue is pathetic

Maqqa wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 12:58pm:

I believe there were 181 breaches found by the FWA. Your attempt to use the amounts to trivialise this issue is pathetic

Well I've read the entire 1100 pages and what ALL the charges boil down to is Thomson not getting proper approval for the expenditure

And he may face some civil charges for not doing the paperwork correctly.  But civil charges don't mean squat to his position in Parliament

I'm summarising these charges and making the assertion that it's reasonable to assume he was authorised to expense the Union's money on winning that seat for the ALP.

Does anyone really think that the Executive / Council controlled by the man who was National President of the ALP would not have approved this expense at the height of the Your Rights At Work campaign?  Or at the very least that it's not reasonable to assume this?

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 1:04pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 12:58pm: I believe there were 181 breaches found by the FWA. Your attempt to use the amounts to trivialise this issue is pathetic Well I've read the entire 1100 pages and what ALL the charges boil down to is Thomson not getting proper approval for the expenditure And he may face some civil charges for not doing the paperwork correctly.  But civil charges don't mean squat to his position in Parliament I'm summarising these charges and making the assertion that it's reasonable to assume he was authorised to expense the Union's money on winning that seat for the ALP. Does anyone really think that the Executive / Council controlled by the man who was National President of the ALP would not have approved this expense at the height of the Your Rights At Work campaign?  Or at the very least that it's not reasonable to assume this?

Not only that but he also lied about someone had signed for his credit card i.e. fraud

Facts are the NSW police looked at the matter and they concluded that he had signed for his credit card

So he didn't have the authority but also lied about spending the money as well

PR, I don't think anyone is really contesting the union funding question. That's the union's problem unless the electoral comission finds something dodgy about it, and so far, they haven't.

But the rest? OF COURSE Marco Balano and Kathy Jackson could have done something. Anyone could have done something. Did Craig Thomson prove it? No. Did he give compelling evidence that they had anything to do with it? No.

He just named them.

You might be able to gain access to you boss's credit card number. You might even be able to get access to the card itself.

What you wouldn't get is your boss's driver's license. Why would your boss lend you his only driver's license? He needs it to drive.

You might get access to his SIM card and pull off an elaborate hoax using his phone, credit card, drivers license and signature.

You'd have less chance of tailing him on freeways, in and out of hotel rooms, and in various cities on different phones over a period of months.

And if you went to all this effort, you'd have no idea who would follow up on the details. You'd just be hoping someone followed up on all your good work.

After all, you haven't got pictures, you've just got a few numbers and signatures.

The problem with this plan is Craig Thomson himself. Surely, he or his accountants are going over his credit card statements and seeing business like "escort services" listed. Surely, he will query all your good work and get to the bottom of it.

Surely he will find out who's punked him and get them back somehow.

But no - he signs off on the lot.

Ultimately, the prostitute allegations are the union's business too, but they point to a huge misuse of union money - which is what the allegations have been about all along.

And which Craig Thomson does not deny. The charge - in the "court" of public opinion - is that an ex-union boss frittered away hundreds of thousands of dollars. The proof?

He signed off on it.

He's not guilty or innocent as the matter is not before the courts. He's just a symbol of the blatant exploitation of workers by the people who are placed to represent them.

And through this, he has come to be a symbol - rightly or not - of the union movement as a whole, which is why the union movement has distanced itself and why the ACTU cancelled the HSU's membership.

This is not a Liberal plot, the HSU did it all on their own. If you're a member of a union, or you want to see workers get quality representation, you wouldn't support such flagrant waste of your fees. No one does.

Craig Thomson's defence is not reasonable, and not believable. Regardless of this, he's failed to defend himself on the charges of misuse of union funds. How can he?

He approved it all.

Maqqa wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 1:10pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:04pm: Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 12:58pm: I believe there were 181 breaches found by the FWA. Your attempt to use the amounts to trivialise this issue is pathetic Well I've read the entire 1100 pages and what ALL the charges boil down to is Thomson not getting proper approval for the expenditure And he may face some civil charges for not doing the paperwork correctly.  But civil charges don't mean squat to his position in Parliament I'm summarising these charges and making the assertion that it's reasonable to assume he was authorised to expense the Union's money on winning that seat for the ALP. Does anyone really think that the Executive / Council controlled by the man who was National President of the ALP would not have approved this expense at the height of the Your Rights At Work campaign?  Or at the very least that it's not reasonable to assume this? Not only that but he also lied about someone had signed for his credit card i.e. fraud Facts are the NSW police looked at the matter and they concluded that he had signed for his credit card So he didn't have the authority but also lied about spending the money as well

Taking the spin off what happened with this NSW Police investigation and reducing it to actual facts.

KJ took a complaint to the NSW Police that Craig Thomson had frauduently used his Union Credit Card to secure the services of hookers in NSW

The NSW police concluded that there was no way Craig Thomson could have committed a crime in NSW as 1. It is legal to use hookers in NSW and 2. He was the authorised user of this card.

They did NOT investigate whether someone else used his card, as this is not what they were asked to investigate.

They then concluded that IF there was a crime committed it was in Victoria where the National Office is situated, it is now a year later and we still haven't had anything come of that investigation by the Victorian Police - why are they taking so long with what should be a simple case?

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:10pm: PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:04pm: Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 12:58pm: I believe there were 181 breaches found by the FWA. Your attempt to use the amounts to trivialise this issue is pathetic Well I've read the entire 1100 pages and what ALL the charges boil down to is Thomson not getting proper approval for the expenditure And he may face some civil charges for not doing the paperwork correctly.  But civil charges don't mean squat to his position in Parliament I'm summarising these charges and making the assertion that it's reasonable to assume he was authorised to expense the Union's money on winning that seat for the ALP. Does anyone really think that the Executive / Council controlled by the man who was National President of the ALP would not have approved this expense at the height of the Your Rights At Work campaign?  Or at the very least that it's not reasonable to assume this? Not only that but he also lied about someone had signed for his credit card i.e. fraud Facts are the NSW police looked at the matter and they concluded that he had signed for his credit card So he didn't have the authority but also lied about spending the money as well Taking the spin off what happened with this NSW Police investigation and reducing it to actual facts. KJ took a complaint to the NSW Police that Craig Thomson had frauduently used his Union Credit Card to secure the services of hookers in NSW The NSW police concluded that there was no way Craig Thomson could have committed a crime in NSW as 1. It is legal to use hookers in NSW and 2. He was the authorised user of this card. They did NOT investigate whether someone else used his card, as this is not what they were asked to investigate. They then concluded that IF there was a crime committed it was in Victoria where the National Office is situated, it is now a year later and we still haven't had anything come of that investigation by the Victorian Police - why are they taking so long with what should be a simple case?

How can he "fraudulently use" his credit card when he's authorised to use the card

Fraud occurs when you use the card and is not the registered user on the card

So get your facts straight!!!!

Karnal wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

PR, I don't think anyone is really contesting the union funding question. That's the union's problem unless the electoral comission finds something dodgy about it, and so far, they haven't. But the rest? OF COURSE Marco Balano and Kathy Jackson could have done something. Anyone could have done something. Did Craig Thomson prove it? No. Did he give compelling evidence that they had anything to do with it? No. He just named them. You might be able to gain access to you boss's credit card number. You might even be able to get access to the card itself. What you wouldn't get is your boss's driver's license. Why would your boss lend you his only driver's license? He needs it to drive.

No one's claiming access to the Drivers License - only access to the number and you know what, I'm the Administrator and (identity) Verifying Officer of our company's Corporate Credit Cards and I DO have copies of every person's Drivers License who has one of those cards.


Quote:

You might get access to his SIM card and pull off an elaborate hoax using his phone, credit card, drivers license and signature. You'd have less chance of tailing him on freeways, in and out of hotel rooms, and in various cities on different phones over a period of months.

If it was cloned by the people who issued the phone before they gave it to him then we're only talking about 5 phones calls several of which were made when Craig Thomson was in a different location and some when he's in a different state ...


Quote:

And if you went to all this effort, you'd have no idea who would follow up on the details. You'd just be hoping someone followed up on all your good work. After all, you haven't got pictures, you've just got a few numbers and signatures.

Or you could leak the information to the press or make complaints to the NSW and Vic police as the new National Secretary of the Union - sound like anyone we know?


Quote:

The problem with this plan is Craig Thomson himself. Surely, he or his accountants are going over his credit card statements and seeing business like "escort services" listed. Surely, he will query all your good work and get to the bottom of it. Surely he will find out who's punked him and get them back somehow. But no - he signs off on the lot.

No doubt he's guilty of poor governance but most Unions are - they're not businesses run by professionals.  Any organisation which is run by the people who are elected to the post generally lack these

Craig Thomson has clearly said he signed off on the expenses without really knowing what they were. Is that bad?  Sure - is it criminal?  Hardly

He said that MB/KJ threatened to set him up, he didn't say that he believed them at the time, which is evident by the lack luster way he went about managing his affairs as the National Secretary



Quote:

Ultimately, the prostitute allegations are the union's business too, but they point to a huge misuse of union money - which is what the allegations have been about all along. And which Craig Thomson does not deny. The charge - in the "court" of public opinion - is that an ex-union boss frittered away hundreds of thousands of dollars. The proof? He signed off on it. He's not guilty or innocent as the matter is not before the courts. He's just a symbol of the blatant exploitation of workers by the people who are placed to represent them. And through this, he has come to be a symbol - rightly or not - of the union movement as a whole, which is why the union movement has distanced itself and why the ACTU cancelled the HSU's membership.

The ACTU / Unions NSW have a lot to answer for because all they did is protect themselves to the detriment of innocent HSU Members.

In fact Unions NSW had the hide to kick the HSUEast out and is now holding meetings for HSUEast members getting them to sign petitions asking for the Executive to resign.

Bascially playing up to members so they can influence them at a later date once the branch is placed into administration so their preferred candidate can be elected to run HSUEast

All their interested in is using HSU Members money to further their politcal end


Quote:

This is not a Liberal plot, the HSU did it all on their own. If you're a member of a union, or you want to see workers get quality representation, you wouldn't support such flagrant waste of your fees. No one does.

  I haven't mentioned the LNP, they've used the situation to their benefit but I think it's clear that it's KJ behind the whole thing - I think she's doing it with support from the LNP but she's definitely behind it and ultimately she doesn't care about Craig Thomson, her target is HSUEast and Michael Williamson, she wants complete control of that branch and the 40,000 members @ $600 a year that comes with it.

Putting pressure on Thomson and Williamson at the same time was undoubtably the best strategy should could have employed to do this - and guess what it's working

Quote:

Craig Thomson's defence is not reasonable, and not believable. Regardless of this, he's failed to defend himself on the charges of misuse of union funds. How can he? He approved it all.

You as much as admit in your opening paragraph that the expenditure of the vast majority of the money is not an issue, this leaves us with $6k that's been misused and he has provided a defence on this - he doesn't need to prove it, he's not a police agengcy with investigative powers, he has no means to prove it and you know what?  In this country you don't have to prove you're innocent - the authorities need to prove you're guilty

Maqqa wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 1:39pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:28pm: Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:10pm: PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:04pm: Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 12:58pm: I believe there were 181 breaches found by the FWA. Your attempt to use the amounts to trivialise this issue is pathetic Well I've read the entire 1100 pages and what ALL the charges boil down to is Thomson not getting proper approval for the expenditure And he may face some civil charges for not doing the paperwork correctly.  But civil charges don't mean squat to his position in Parliament I'm summarising these charges and making the assertion that it's reasonable to assume he was authorised to expense the Union's money on winning that seat for the ALP. Does anyone really think that the Executive / Council controlled by the man who was National President of the ALP would not have approved this expense at the height of the Your Rights At Work campaign?  Or at the very least that it's not reasonable to assume this? Not only that but he also lied about someone had signed for his credit card i.e. fraud Facts are the NSW police looked at the matter and they concluded that he had signed for his credit card So he didn't have the authority but also lied about spending the money as well Taking the spin off what happened with this NSW Police investigation and reducing it to actual facts. KJ took a complaint to the NSW Police that Craig Thomson had frauduently used his Union Credit Card to secure the services of hookers in NSW The NSW police concluded that there was no way Craig Thomson could have committed a crime in NSW as 1. It is legal to use hookers in NSW and 2. He was the authorised user of this card. They did NOT investigate whether someone else used his card, as this is not what they were asked to investigate. They then concluded that IF there was a crime committed it was in Victoria where the National Office is situated, it is now a year later and we still haven't had anything come of that investigation by the Victorian Police - why are they taking so long with what should be a simple case? How can he "fraudulently use" his credit card when he's authorised to use the card Fraud occurs when you use the card and is not the registered user on the card So get your facts straight!!!!

Umm yeah that's what I said - never mind I think the nuances of the issue are a bit above you, best leave the debate to the grown ups

Quote:

In this country you don't have to prove you're innocent - the authorities need to prove you're guilty

You are wasting your breath there. These idiots wont acknowledge that. Its been pointed out over and over.

SOB

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 1:58pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:39pm: PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:28pm: Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:10pm: PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:04pm: Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 12:58pm: I believe there were 181 breaches found by the FWA. Your attempt to use the amounts to trivialise this issue is pathetic Well I've read the entire 1100 pages and what ALL the charges boil down to is Thomson not getting proper approval for the expenditure And he may face some civil charges for not doing the paperwork correctly.  But civil charges don't mean squat to his position in Parliament I'm summarising these charges and making the assertion that it's reasonable to assume he was authorised to expense the Union's money on winning that seat for the ALP. Does anyone really think that the Executive / Council controlled by the man who was National President of the ALP would not have approved this expense at the height of the Your Rights At Work campaign?  Or at the very least that it's not reasonable to assume this? Not only that but he also lied about someone had signed for his credit card i.e. fraud Facts are the NSW police looked at the matter and they concluded that he had signed for his credit card So he didn't have the authority but also lied about spending the money as well Taking the spin off what happened with this NSW Police investigation and reducing it to actual facts. KJ took a complaint to the NSW Police that Craig Thomson had frauduently used his Union Credit Card to secure the services of hookers in NSW The NSW police concluded that there was no way Craig Thomson could have committed a crime in NSW as 1. It is legal to use hookers in NSW and 2. He was the authorised user of this card. They did NOT investigate whether someone else used his card, as this is not what they were asked to investigate. They then concluded that IF there was a crime committed it was in Victoria where the National Office is situated, it is now a year later and we still haven't had anything come of that investigation by the Victorian Police - why are they taking so long with what should be a simple case? How can he "fraudulently use" his credit card when he's authorised to use the card Fraud occurs when you use the card and is not the registered user on the card So get your facts straight!!!! Umm yeah that's what I said - never mind I think the nuances of the issue are a bit above you, best leave the debate to the grown ups

Read what you wrote again moron

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

No one's claiming access to the Drivers License - only access to the number and you know what, I'm the Administrator and (identity) Verifying Officer of our company's Corporate Credit Cards and I DO have copies of every person's Drivers License who has one of those cards.

The number? When you're verifying your credit card, you need the plastic. The license was photo ID. A photocopy is not going to cut it.


PoliticalReality wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

No doubt he's guilty of poor governance but most Unions are - they're not businesses run by professionals.

Unions file tax returns and require annual audits like any other business. How could they possibly ignore $500,000 of mistaken spending - or even $6000?


PoliticalReality wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

[quote author=0D273428272A460 link=1337824466/7#7 date=1337829080] You as much as admit in your opening paragraph that the expenditure of the vast majority of the money is not an issue, this leaves us with $6k that's been misused and he has provided a defence on this - he doesn't need to prove it, he's not a police agengcy with investigative powers, he has no means to prove it and you know what?  In this country you don't have to prove you're innocent - the authorities need to prove you're guilty

If he wants to defend his record, he needs to prove it. The very fact that he's in this position means that he needs to prove it. The standing of the government and the labour movement as a whole has been tarnished by it. Even more reason to prove it. The stakes are huge.

I'm not saying he's guilty of a crime. But do you really think that spending union money on a federal campaign is legit? Some of it maybe. After all, it was a campaign against Workchoices.

But half a million?

It's not good enough to say that he didn't break the law. This is an example of unbelievable recklessness. Worse - it's blatant exploitation.

The union paid for a house in Sydney when he lived an hour and a half away on the Central Coast. The union paid for his wife's holidays. The union paid for his ridiculous annual salary, and he put every other living expense he incurred on his credit card.

But that wasn't enough. He got the nod to stand for a federal seat, and he put his campaign on the card as well.

And somewhere in the process, other things got whacked on - $6000 for prostitutes. And he approved it.

How can you possibly defend this? How can you say he doesn't need to prove anything?

Even the most rusted-on Labor hack understands he's been caught with his hand in the till and needs to go.

The Craig Thomson "affair" will go down in history as the Khemlani affair of the Gillard government.

Even the Khemlani loans affair was understandable. The Whitlam government needed foreign money during a recession to develop Australian resources.

Craig Thomson needed money - for what?

Karnal wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 2:33pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: No one's claiming access to the Drivers License - only access to the number and you know what, I'm the Administrator and (identity) Verifying Officer of our company's Corporate Credit Cards and I DO have copies of every person's Drivers License who has one of those cards. The number? When you're verifying your credit card, you need the plastic. The license was photo ID. A photocopy is not going to cut it.

I'm beginning the think you didn't read my wonderfully composed piece, you're assuming the merchant is reputable, know a lot reputable knock shops?


Quote:

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: No doubt he's guilty of poor governance but most Unions are - they're not businesses run by professionals.  Unions file tax returns and require annual audits like any other business. How could they possibly ignore $500,000 of mistaken spending - or even $6000?

No1 You've already agree it's only $6000 of mistaken spending I would suspect you're being disengenuous to continue bringing up the $500k figure but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt  :D

Unions don't file Tax Returns because they're exempt from income tax, what they do is file Financial Returns to FWA.

The financial reports covering this period were filed, late, by KJ as she took over as National Secretary the moment Thomson was delcared elected to Parliament.

She didn't sign them though and this is what the FWA asserting against KJ relate to - late filing of unsigned Financial Returns


Quote:

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Karnal wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:11pm: You as much as admit in your opening paragraph that the expenditure of the vast majority of the money is not an issue, this leaves us with $6k that's been misused and he has provided a defence on this - he doesn't need to prove it, he's not a police agengcy with investigative powers, he has no means to prove it and you know what?  In this country you don't have to prove you're innocent - the authorities need to prove you're guilty If he wants to defend his record, he needs to prove it. The very fact that he's in this position means that he needs to prove it. The standing of the government and the labour movement as a whole has been tarnished by it. Even more reason to prove it. The stakes are huge. I'm not saying he's guilty of a crime. But do you really think that spending union money on a federal campaign is legit? Some of it maybe. After all, it was a campaign against Workchoices. But half a million? It's legit if the Executive and the Council think it is, and I assert that they did.  $500k equates to about $6 a member, seems a small price to pay to have WorkChoice brought down - some would say a bargain. [quote] It's not good enough to say that he didn't break the law. This is an example of unbelievable recklessness. Worse - it's blatant exploitation. The union paid for a house in Sydney when he lived an hour and a half away on the Central Coast. The union paid for his wife's holidays. The union paid for his ridiculous annual salary, and he put every other living expense he incurred on his credit card. But that wasn't enough. He got the nod to stand for a federal seat, and he put his campaign on the card as well. And somewhere in the process, other things got whacked on - $6000 for prostitutes. And he approved it. How can you possibly defend this? How can you say he doesn't need to prove anything? Even the most rusted-on Labor hack understands he's been caught with his hand in the till and needs to go. The Craig Thomson "affair" will go down in history as the Khemlani affair of the Gillard government. Even the Khemlani loans affair was understandable. The Whitlam government needed foreign money during a recession to develop Australian resources. Craig Thomson needed money - for what?

99% of the money in question was needed to destroy WorkChoices - you really think $6 a member was too high a price to pay?

Not me, and I guarantee not the people who were tasked with approving the expenditure

When will you realise that if you take away his "innocent until proven guilty" you take away everyones presumption of innocence? We cant set that precedent.

SOB

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 2:48pm:

Karnal wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 2:33pm: PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: No one's claiming access to the Drivers License - only access to the number and you know what, I'm the Administrator and (identity) Verifying Officer of our company's Corporate Credit Cards and I DO have copies of every person's Drivers License who has one of those cards. The number? When you're verifying your credit card, you need the plastic. The license was photo ID. A photocopy is not going to cut it. I'm beginning the think you didn't read my wonderfully composed piece, you're assuming the merchant is reputable, know a lot reputable knock shops? Quote: PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: No doubt he's guilty of poor governance but most Unions are - they're not businesses run by professionals.  Unions file tax returns and require annual audits like any other business. How could they possibly ignore $500,000 of mistaken spending - or even $6000? No1 You've already agree it's only $6000 of mistaken spending I would suspect you're being disengenuous to continue bringing up the $500k figure but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt  :D Unions don't file Tax Returns because they're exempt from income tax, what they do is file Financial Returns to FWA. The financial reports covering this period were filed, late, by KJ as she took over as National Secretary the moment Thomson was delcared elected to Parliament. She didn't sign them though and this is what the FWA asserting against KJ relate to - late filing of unsigned Financial Returns [quote] PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Karnal wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:11pm: You as much as admit in your opening paragraph that the expenditure of the vast majority of the money is not an issue, this leaves us with $6k that's been misused and he has provided a defence on this - he doesn't need to prove it, he's not a police agengcy with investigative powers, he has no means to prove it and you know what?  In this country you don't have to prove you're innocent - the authorities need to prove you're guilty If he wants to defend his record, he needs to prove it. The very fact that he's in this position means that he needs to prove it. The standing of the government and the labour movement as a whole has been tarnished by it. Even more reason to prove it. The stakes are huge. I'm not saying he's guilty of a crime. But do you really think that spending union money on a federal campaign is legit? Some of it maybe. After all, it was a campaign against Workchoices. But half a million? It's legit if the Executive and the Council think it is, and I assert that they did.  $500k equates to about $6 a member, seems a small price to pay to have WorkChoice brought down - some would say a bargain. [quote] It's not good enough to say that he didn't break the law. This is an example of unbelievable recklessness. Worse - it's blatant exploitation. The union paid for a house in Sydney when he lived an hour and a half away on the Central Coast. The union paid for his wife's holidays. The union paid for his ridiculous annual salary, and he put every other living expense he incurred on his credit card. But that wasn't enough. He got the nod to stand for a federal seat, and he put his campaign on the card as well. And somewhere in the process, other things got whacked on - $6000 for prostitutes. And he approved it. How can you possibly defend this? How can you say he doesn't need to prove anything? Even the most rusted-on Labor hack understands he's been caught with his hand in the till and needs to go. The Craig Thomson "affair" will go down in history as the Khemlani affair of the Gillard government. Even the Khemlani loans affair was understandable. The Whitlam government needed foreign money during a recession to develop Australian resources. Craig Thomson needed money - for what?

99% of the money in question was needed to destroy WorkChoices - you really think $6 a member was too high a price to pay?

Not me, and I guarantee not the people who were tasked with approving the expenditure[/quote]

what drivel is that? NO ONE - not even Thomson - is saying that. the VAST amount of the $500K was spent by Thomson ON Thomson.

Your explanation is idioitc but the best claim of all is that you read the entire 1100 pages of the report. You didnt and no protestations will convince me otherwise. If you had, there is no way you woudl be defending this scumbag in the brainless manner in which you are.

EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe.

Sounds like you are living there with him.

Quote:

EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe.

Show me where they have been shown to be false. In the media right?

Have YOU read the 1100 page report?

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 3:17pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 2:48pm: Karnal wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 2:33pm: PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: No one's claiming access to the Drivers License - only access to the number and you know what, I'm the Administrator and (identity) Verifying Officer of our company's Corporate Credit Cards and I DO have copies of every person's Drivers License who has one of those cards. The number? When you're verifying your credit card, you need the plastic. The license was photo ID. A photocopy is not going to cut it. I'm beginning the think you didn't read my wonderfully composed piece, you're assuming the merchant is reputable, know a lot reputable knock shops? Quote: PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: No doubt he's guilty of poor governance but most Unions are - they're not businesses run by professionals.  Unions file tax returns and require annual audits like any other business. How could they possibly ignore $500,000 of mistaken spending - or even $6000? No1 You've already agree it's only $6000 of mistaken spending I would suspect you're being disengenuous to continue bringing up the $500k figure but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt  :D Unions don't file Tax Returns because they're exempt from income tax, what they do is file Financial Returns to FWA. The financial reports covering this period were filed, late, by KJ as she took over as National Secretary the moment Thomson was delcared elected to Parliament. She didn't sign them though and this is what the FWA asserting against KJ relate to - late filing of unsigned Financial Returns [quote] PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Karnal wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:11pm: You as much as admit in your opening paragraph that the expenditure of the vast majority of the money is not an issue, this leaves us with $6k that's been misused and he has provided a defence on this - he doesn't need to prove it, he's not a police agengcy with investigative powers, he has no means to prove it and you know what?  In this country you don't have to prove you're innocent - the authorities need to prove you're guilty If he wants to defend his record, he needs to prove it. The very fact that he's in this position means that he needs to prove it. The standing of the government and the labour movement as a whole has been tarnished by it. Even more reason to prove it. The stakes are huge. I'm not saying he's guilty of a crime. But do you really think that spending union money on a federal campaign is legit? Some of it maybe. After all, it was a campaign against Workchoices. But half a million? It's legit if the Executive and the Council think it is, and I assert that they did.  $500k equates to about $6 a member, seems a small price to pay to have WorkChoice brought down - some would say a bargain. [quote] It's not good enough to say that he didn't break the law. This is an example of unbelievable recklessness. Worse - it's blatant exploitation. The union paid for a house in Sydney when he lived an hour and a half away on the Central Coast. The union paid for his wife's holidays. The union paid for his ridiculous annual salary, and he put every other living expense he incurred on his credit card. But that wasn't enough. He got the nod to stand for a federal seat, and he put his campaign on the card as well. And somewhere in the process, other things got whacked on - $6000 for prostitutes. And he approved it. How can you possibly defend this? How can you say he doesn't need to prove anything? Even the most rusted-on Labor hack understands he's been caught with his hand in the till and needs to go. The Craig Thomson "affair" will go down in history as the Khemlani affair of the Gillard government. Even the Khemlani loans affair was understandable. The Whitlam government needed foreign money during a recession to develop Australian resources. Craig Thomson needed money - for what? 99% of the money in question was needed to destroy WorkChoices - you really think $6 a member was too high a price to pay? Not me, and I guarantee not the people who were tasked with approving the expenditure

what drivel is that? NO ONE - not even Thomson - is saying that. the VAST amount of the $500K was spent by Thomson ON Thomson.

[/quote]

"I want to go to the specific issues raised by Fair Work Australia. I will leave the one that I think most people are interested in until the end. That way I know that you are still going to listen. Many of the breaches in the Fair Work Act are because the delegate has misconstrued the rules of the organisation. He has construed the rules as saying that there was not approval for expenditure by the national secretary. That is despite the rules being very clear that there is. For example, he uses the issue of staff salary and the ability to appoint staff. It flies in the face of the rules, the law and, most importantly, the fact that these issues were in budgets that were approved on a quarterly basis by the union, every quarter that I was the national secretary. They were there, they showed the expenditure and they were approved. Can I say that, of the 150 allegations that deal with me, that deals with well over 100 in that broad position"

Craig Thomson in Parliament saying EXACTLY that.


Quote:

Your explanation is idioitc but the best claim of all is that you read the entire 1100 pages of the report. You didnt and no protestations will convince me otherwise. If you had, there is no way you woudl be defending this scumbag in the brainless manner in which you are.

I'll take myself as my source over your incorherent rantings I think


Quote:

EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Sounds like you are living there with him.

EVERY single one hey?  I'm pretty sure that NO SINGLE claim has even been tested yet

His own party hey? (I'll ignore the fact he's not actually a member of the ALP at the moment)

"Chief Labor Whip Joel Fitzgibbon on Tuesday said Mr Thomson's defence of allegations he misused union funds contained "believable propositions"."

PRs Tip For The Day - If you're going to try and speak with authority you should at least, you know, have some of your facts correct.

Maqqa wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 12:58pm:

I believe there were 181 breaches found by the FWA. Your attempt to use the amounts to trivialise this issue is pathetic

... and amateurish!

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 3:17pm: PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 2:48pm: Karnal wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 2:33pm: PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: No one's claiming access to the Drivers License - only access to the number and you know what, I'm the Administrator and (identity) Verifying Officer of our company's Corporate Credit Cards and I DO have copies of every person's Drivers License who has one of those cards. The number? When you're verifying your credit card, you need the plastic. The license was photo ID. A photocopy is not going to cut it. I'm beginning the think you didn't read my wonderfully composed piece, you're assuming the merchant is reputable, know a lot reputable knock shops? Quote: PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: No doubt he's guilty of poor governance but most Unions are - they're not businesses run by professionals.  Unions file tax returns and require annual audits like any other business. How could they possibly ignore $500,000 of mistaken spending - or even $6000? No1 You've already agree it's only $6000 of mistaken spending I would suspect you're being disengenuous to continue bringing up the $500k figure but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt  :D Unions don't file Tax Returns because they're exempt from income tax, what they do is file Financial Returns to FWA. The financial reports covering this period were filed, late, by KJ as she took over as National Secretary the moment Thomson was delcared elected to Parliament. She didn't sign them though and this is what the FWA asserting against KJ relate to - late filing of unsigned Financial Returns [quote] PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Karnal wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:11pm: You as much as admit in your opening paragraph that the expenditure of the vast majority of the money is not an issue, this leaves us with $6k that's been misused and he has provided a defence on this - he doesn't need to prove it, he's not a police agengcy with investigative powers, he has no means to prove it and you know what?  In this country you don't have to prove you're innocent - the authorities need to prove you're guilty If he wants to defend his record, he needs to prove it. The very fact that he's in this position means that he needs to prove it. The standing of the government and the labour movement as a whole has been tarnished by it. Even more reason to prove it. The stakes are huge. I'm not saying he's guilty of a crime. But do you really think that spending union money on a federal campaign is legit? Some of it maybe. After all, it was a campaign against Workchoices. But half a million? It's legit if the Executive and the Council think it is, and I assert that they did.  $500k equates to about $6 a member, seems a small price to pay to have WorkChoice brought down - some would say a bargain. [quote] It's not good enough to say that he didn't break the law. This is an example of unbelievable recklessness. Worse - it's blatant exploitation. The union paid for a house in Sydney when he lived an hour and a half away on the Central Coast. The union paid for his wife's holidays. The union paid for his ridiculous annual salary, and he put every other living expense he incurred on his credit card. But that wasn't enough. He got the nod to stand for a federal seat, and he put his campaign on the card as well. And somewhere in the process, other things got whacked on - $6000 for prostitutes. And he approved it. How can you possibly defend this? How can you say he doesn't need to prove anything? Even the most rusted-on Labor hack understands he's been caught with his hand in the till and needs to go. The Craig Thomson "affair" will go down in history as the Khemlani affair of the Gillard government. Even the Khemlani loans affair was understandable. The Whitlam government needed foreign money during a recession to develop Australian resources. Craig Thomson needed money - for what? 99% of the money in question was needed to destroy WorkChoices - you really think $6 a member was too high a price to pay? Not me, and I guarantee not the people who were tasked with approving the expenditure what drivel is that? NO ONE - not even Thomson - is saying that. the VAST amount of the $500K was spent by Thomson ON Thomson.

"I want to go to the specific issues raised by Fair Work Australia. I will leave the one that I think most people are interested in until the end. That way I know that you are still going to listen. Many of the breaches in the Fair Work Act are because the delegate has misconstrued the rules of the organisation. He has construed the rules as saying that there was not approval for expenditure by the national secretary. That is despite the rules being very clear that there is. For example, he uses the issue of staff salary and the ability to appoint staff. It flies in the face of the rules, the law and, most importantly, the fact that these issues were in budgets that were approved on a quarterly basis by the union, every quarter that I was the national secretary. They were there, they showed the expenditure and they were approved. Can I say that, of the 150 allegations that deal with me, that deals with well over 100 in that broad position"

Craig Thomson in Parliament saying EXACTLY that.


Quote:

Your explanation is idioitc but the best claim of all is that you read the entire 1100 pages of the report. You didnt and no protestations will convince me otherwise. If you had, there is no way you woudl be defending this scumbag in the brainless manner in which you are.

I'll take myself as my source over your incorherent rantings I think


Quote:

EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Sounds like you are living there with him.

EVERY single one hey?  I'm pretty sure that NO SINGLE claim has even been tested yet

His own party hey? (I'll ignore the fact he's not actually a member of the ALP at the moment)

"Chief Labor Whip Joel Fitzgibbon on Tuesday said Mr Thomson's defence of allegations he misused union funds contained "believable propositions"."

PRs Tip For The Day - If you're going to try and speak with authority you should at least, you know, have some of your facts correct.

[/quote]

Quotiing Thomsons support of his own explanation is perhaps the weakest argument possible to be made. UNbelievably dumb!

Quote:

Quotiing Thomsons support of his own explanation is perhaps the weakest argument possible to be made. UNbelievably dumb!

But arent you saying he needs to explain himself? He did.

SOB

Quote:

EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe.

Around the traps, I meet some odd characters, none less so than 'Mellie' who will just make up whatever she needs to suit her position.  She posts links, which, when you check, have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

This delusional Mr. Liar Long Time is another Mellie.  Give me DRaH anytime.

So, Mr. Lie Long Time, may I ask that you produce links which support those claims?

:D

Quote:

Your explanation is idioitc but the best claim of all is that you read the entire 1100 pages of the report. You didnt and no protestations will convince me otherwise. If you had, there is no way you woudl be defending this scumbag in the brainless manner in which you are. EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Sounds like you are living there with him.

-Longy, or if you prefer, the appropriately humourous sobriquet that Aussie has been using, "Mr Lie Long Time" lol

With someone with your track record on this forum Longy, getting caught out lying, so often, and for so long, and ALWAYS whilst championing a stance intended to portray the Liberal Party in a more favourable light, it seems pretty rich that you have the gall to be throwing the accusations about the credibility of others, so recklessly.
Your track record is so bad, if you told someone it was fine and sunny, they would grab an umbrella before going out.
In the early days I thought you may have been just a bit delusional in your pro Liberal fervour, but when you continued to repeat things that had already been proven false, because doing so was in your mind, supporting the party line, I drew the conclusion that you chose to lie deliberately.
Not many people do that.
It really is not a good look.

mozzaok wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

Quote: Your explanation is idioitc but the best claim of all is that you read the entire 1100 pages of the report. You didnt and no protestations will convince me otherwise. If you had, there is no way you woudl be defending this scumbag in the brainless manner in which you are. EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Sounds like you are living there with him. -Longy, or if you prefer, the appropriately humourous sobriquet that Aussie has been using, "Mr Lie Long Time" lol With someone with your track record on this forum Longy, getting caught out lying, so often, and for so long, and ALWAYS whilst championing a stance intended to portray the Liberal Party in a more favourable light, it seems pretty rich that you have the gall to be throwing the accusations about the credibility of others, so recklessly. Your track record is so bad, if you told someone it was fine and sunny, they would grab an umbrella before going out. In the early days I thought you may have been just a bit delusional in your pro Liberal fervour, but when you continued to repeat things that had already been proven false, because doing so was in your mind, supporting the party line, I drew the conclusion that you chose to lie deliberately. Not many people do that. It really is not a good look.

oh really? Care to list the 'lies' Ive supposedly supported? At least I am not claiming to be a lawyer like aussie.

And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof? When he said he didnt go to the brothel but the NSW police say he did, you say there is still no proof? What exactly is your standard for proof that requires parliament to act? criminal conviction?

Why dont you start a debate on the Code of Conduct and what is expected and what sanctions apply?  That moron Windsor is saying he wants legislation or constitutional referendum to increase the range of penatlies on misbehaving MPs yet this same twit says he does not support ANY sanction on Thomson!!!

THIS is the standard of behaviour you implicitly support. Just as Windsor is supporting Thomson to save his own job, you are supporting Thomson to support your preferrered party. NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE. After everything you have said about Howard - who was never charged with anything - or Reith - who was never charged - or so on and so on...

You are a cheer squad member whos values spring forth from your support of the ALP. I have questioned many times why so many (and there are dozens)  ALP MPs have done lengthy jail terms for serious offences that their party was at least partly aware of. NOW I KNOW. POWER is the only objective.

When I hear a labor MP demanding that Thomson be censured I will know that there is still some integrity in the ALP. A censure motion wont affect his vote but he ALP cant even agree to THAT.

So I ask again. Do you have a standard of behaviour that you could possibly apply across all parties?

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 5:43pm:

Quote: EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Around the traps, I meet some odd characters, none less so than 'Mellie' who will just make up whatever she needs to suit her position.  She posts links, which, when you check, have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. This delusional Mr. Liar Long Time is another Mellie.  Give me DRaH anytime. So, Mr. Lie Long Time, may I ask that you produce links which support those claims? :D

why would anyone bother to supply links to you? You are already on record as saying you dont accept ANYTHING from the media. You accept nothing that the FWA has investigated. You dont accept anything the police have said... so what is left?

you are a waste of space, a loser trying to imagine he was once a lawyer yet doesnt even understand the nature or evidence nor 'proof beyong REASONABLE DOUBT'.

mozzaok wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

Quote: Your explanation is idioitc but the best claim of all is that you read the entire 1100 pages of the report. You didnt and no protestations will convince me otherwise. If you had, there is no way you woudl be defending this scumbag in the brainless manner in which you are. EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Sounds like you are living there with him. -Longy, or if you prefer, the appropriately humourous sobriquet that Aussie has been using, "Mr Lie Long Time" lol With someone with your track record on this forum Longy, getting caught out lying, so often, and for so long, and ALWAYS whilst championing a stance intended to portray the Liberal Party in a more favourable light, it seems pretty rich that you have the gall to be throwing the accusations about the credibility of others, so recklessly. Your track record is so bad, if you told someone it was fine and sunny, they would grab an umbrella before going out. In the early days I thought you may have been just a bit delusional in your pro Liberal fervour, but when you continued to repeat things that had already been proven false, because doing so was in your mind, supporting the party line, I drew the conclusion that you chose to lie deliberately. Not many people do that. It really is not a good look.

List the lies. go on. AS a moderator - which is in itself a joke - you should be held to a higher standard. But of course.,.. I forget... the standard is now 'presumption of innocence' and nothing more.

SO in the grand tradition of aussie the wannbe lawyer I demand that you show my 'lies' and list substantive proof. And keep in mind that 'error' is not 'lie' and 'lie' requires you to prove (remember that presumption of innocence again) that it was a lie said in full knowledge of the truth.

Do you have the character to support your allegation or will you just fade away as you so often do?

I DARE YOU TO DO SO. SHOW US YOUR CHARACTER

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:05pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 5:45pm: Quote: Your explanation is idioitc but the best claim of all is that you read the entire 1100 pages of the report. You didnt and no protestations will convince me otherwise. If you had, there is no way you woudl be defending this scumbag in the brainless manner in which you are. EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Sounds like you are living there with him. -Longy, or if you prefer, the appropriately humourous sobriquet that Aussie has been using, "Mr Lie Long Time" lol With someone with your track record on this forum Longy, getting caught out lying, so often, and for so long, and ALWAYS whilst championing a stance intended to portray the Liberal Party in a more favourable light, it seems pretty rich that you have the gall to be throwing the accusations about the credibility of others, so recklessly. Your track record is so bad, if you told someone it was fine and sunny, they would grab an umbrella before going out. In the early days I thought you may have been just a bit delusional in your pro Liberal fervour, but when you continued to repeat things that had already been proven false, because doing so was in your mind, supporting the party line, I drew the conclusion that you chose to lie deliberately. Not many people do that. It really is not a good look. List the lies. go on. AS a moderator - which is in itself a joke - you should be held to a higher standard. But of course.,.. I forget... the standard is now 'presumption of innocence' and nothing more. SO in the grand tradition of aussie the wannbe lawyer I demand that you show my 'lies' and list substantive proof. And keep in mind that 'error' is not 'lie' and 'lie' requires you to prove (remember that presumption of innocence again) that it was a lie said in full knowledge of the truth. Do you have the character to support your allegation or will you just fade away as you so often do? I DARE YOU TO DO SO. SHOW US YOUR CHARACTER

I may go with, "I read it in the Australian", or "anyone with more than half a brain knows that", or any of the myriad reasons you have used to declare your certain knowledge of Thomson's guilt.


As for your prove it challenge, how about this?
I will promise to tell you next time you tell a deliberate, provable lie.
I figure that won't be too long, and will probably be quicker than having to troll though old posts to provide you with evidence you alone would deny anyway.

You want your lies listed Mr. Lie Liong Time.  Okay, there are many but I'll just use those in just this Post of yours:


Quote:

oh really? Care to list the 'lies' Ive supposedly supported? At least I am not claiming to be a lawyer like aussie.

Well, not really a lie, but a deliberate distortion of fact.  There is no doubt you have never claimed to be a lawyer.  I am.....retired.


Quote:

And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof?

Another lie.  There is not even one legally enforceable finding against Thomson.


Quote:

When he said he didnt go to the brothel but the NSW police say he did, you say there is still no proof?

Another unsupported defamatory allegation, and lie.


Quote:

What exactly is your standard for proof that requires parliament to act? criminal conviction?

Simple.  See the the Constitution.

mozzaok wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:05pm: mozzaok wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 5:45pm: Quote: Your explanation is idioitc but the best claim of all is that you read the entire 1100 pages of the report. You didnt and no protestations will convince me otherwise. If you had, there is no way you woudl be defending this scumbag in the brainless manner in which you are. EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Sounds like you are living there with him. -Longy, or if you prefer, the appropriately humourous sobriquet that Aussie has been using, "Mr Lie Long Time" lol With someone with your track record on this forum Longy, getting caught out lying, so often, and for so long, and ALWAYS whilst championing a stance intended to portray the Liberal Party in a more favourable light, it seems pretty rich that you have the gall to be throwing the accusations about the credibility of others, so recklessly. Your track record is so bad, if you told someone it was fine and sunny, they would grab an umbrella before going out. In the early days I thought you may have been just a bit delusional in your pro Liberal fervour, but when you continued to repeat things that had already been proven false, because doing so was in your mind, supporting the party line, I drew the conclusion that you chose to lie deliberately. Not many people do that. It really is not a good look. List the lies. go on. AS a moderator - which is in itself a joke - you should be held to a higher standard. But of course.,.. I forget... the standard is now 'presumption of innocence' and nothing more. SO in the grand tradition of aussie the wannbe lawyer I demand that you show my 'lies' and list substantive proof. And keep in mind that 'error' is not 'lie' and 'lie' requires you to prove (remember that presumption of innocence again) that it was a lie said in full knowledge of the truth. Do you have the character to support your allegation or will you just fade away as you so often do? I DARE YOU TO DO SO. SHOW US YOUR CHARACTER I may go with, "I read it in the Australian", or "anyone with more than half a brain knows that", or any of the myriad reasons you have used to declare your certain knowledge of Thomson's guilt. As for your prove it challenge, how about this? I will promise to tell you next time you tell a deliberate, provable lie. I figure that won't be too long, and will probably be quicker than having to troll though old posts to provide you with evidence you alone would deny anyway.

You're on. and remember the standard that you employ. Remember that you cant use media reports because you have accepted Aussie's standard of evidence. and you cant use FWA reports or any other official findings into anything because assuei (and you) reject them as well. remember now that you ahev the PRESUMPTION of innocence wheich means for you to prove I lied you have to have proof not simply admissable to a court but haveing been proven so before a judge.

Your standard, not mine.

Ok, I will give you the benefit of logic that you deny everyone else. If you want to say I lied then you PROVE it by the usual standards of proof - 'resonableness'.

And it would still be good to get an explanation on a possible code of conduct and how it will evolve when the ALP accepts nothing less than criminal conviction.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 2:51pm:

When will you realise that if you take away his "innocent until proven guilty" you take away everyones presumption of innocence? We cant set that precedent. SOB

That's under a criminal investigation

In circumstances like this - the findings of the legislated body finds you guilty then you are guilty. It's up to you to prove your innocence

The ATO is a prime example of this

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:18pm:

You want your lies listed Mr. Lie Liong Time.  Okay, there are many but I'll just use those in just this Post of yours: Quote: oh really? Care to list the 'lies' Ive supposedly supported? At least I am not claiming to be a lawyer like aussie. Well, not really a lie, but a deliberate distortion of fact.  There is no doubt you have never claimed to be a lawyer.  I am.....retired. [quote]And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof?

Another lie.  There is not even one legally enforceable findings against Thomson.


Quote:

When he said he didnt go to the brothel but the NSW police say he did, you say there is still no proof?

Another unsupported defamatory allegation, and lie.


Quote:

What exactly is your standard for proof that requires parliament to act? criminal conviction?

Simple.  See the the Constitution.



[/quote]

By the standard that YOU employ I demand that you prove you are a lawyer. otherwise you are a liar by your own admission. I require to see your licent to practrice along with insurance certificate plus your drivers licence and  your 'admission to the bar'. Obviously your law degree will be required as well. Im sure you understand that I cant take anythign less than this by your own standards.

nothing else will suffice. Otherwise you are a liar.

Quote:

And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof? Another lie.  There is not even one legally enforceable finding against Thomson.

are you really that stupid? obviuusly yes. the FWA has found 181 LEGALLY ENFORCABLE breaches of the law. and they intend to take it thru teh courts and have in fact already done so against some other HSU people  you really should look up some while you type your drivel.

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:18pm:

You want your lies listed Mr. Lie Liong Time.  Okay, there are many but I'll just use those in just this Post of yours: Quote: oh really? Care to list the 'lies' Ive supposedly supported? At least I am not claiming to be a lawyer like aussie. Well, not really a lie, but a deliberate distortion of fact.  There is no doubt you have never claimed to be a lawyer.  I am.....retired. [quote]And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof?

Another lie.  There is not even one legally enforceable finding against Thomson.


Quote:

When he said he didnt go to the brothel but the NSW police say he did, you say there is still no proof?

Another unsupported defamatory allegation, and lie.


Quote:

What exactly is your standard for proof that requires parliament to act? criminal conviction?

Simple.  See the the Constitution.



[/quote]

never heard of a CENSURE motion you moron?

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:23pm:

Quote: And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof? Another lie.  There is not even one legally enforceable finding against Thomson. are you really that stupid? obviuusly yes. the FWA has found 181 LEGALLY ENFORCABLE breaches of the law. and they intend to take it thru teh courts and have in fact already done so against some other HSU people  you really should look up some while you type your drivel.

Even Thomson admitted there are 9 separate investigations and proceedings

Maqqa wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:23pm: Quote: And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof? Another lie.  There is not even one legally enforceable finding against Thomson. are you really that stupid? obviuusly yes. the FWA has found 181 LEGALLY ENFORCABLE breaches of the law. and they intend to take it thru teh courts and have in fact already done so against some other HSU people  you really should look up some while you type your drivel. Even Thomson admitted there are 9 separate investigations and proceedings

That's inadmissable to the minds of aussie and mozza. and be careful or mozza will call you a liar for saying so. after all what is your proof of this claim? can you prove this without reference to anything you've read heard or seen?

yep. thats the brave new world of ALP justice. No wonder so many end up in jail.

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 12:09pm:

angeleyes wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 12:02pm: It is not unreasonable to assume that CT's SIM card could have been cloned prior to him receiving the phone for his use as National Secretary Best you do some research on sim cloning. If you've got the SIM card it's easy - you just take a copy of the card "GSM SIM cards are actually copied by removing the SIM card and placing a device between the handset and the SIM card and allowing it to operate for a few days and extracting the KI, or secret code"

there is of course a little more to that than just a SIM card.. first of all they would have to know when he was going to be in the hotel room..they whoever made the call would have to be in the same vicinity to be on the same  radio wave or whatever its called..not an easy thing to do unless you work for the phone company I would think..and as its all Union admin that are after him it doesnt add up either..


also how do you know he only paid $6k.. for escorts... that was on the creditcard... god only knows what he spent when he left his credit card behind.


and then there is the fact he signed for EVERYTHING.. how does he explain that???????


you know if someone was out to get me.. I would be very very careful what i signed for..be it cheques or giving someone permission to pay my credit card expenses..

it doesnt stack up.


god I am not the sharpest knife in the draw but I can see through this without any trouble..


AND WHAT ABOUT THE AMERICAN EXPRESS CARD.??

Quote:

Even Thomson admitted there are 9 separate investigations and proceedings....

No he did not.  Another lie.  Two words too many.....you liars cannot seem to help yourself.

;)

Crikey..how many threads are there on this topic?

YOU KNOW FOR A BLOKE WHO WAS PROBABLY EARNING ABOUT $200KS A YEAR.. PLUS EXPENSES.. oops..plus a car phone.careditcard. plus plus plus.. he then steals $500.000 and on top of that he has an American Express card..

then he cant pay his lawyers..

what a lifestyle this guy was leading.

If you've got the SIM card it's easy - you just take a copy of the card

"GSM SIM cards are actually copied by removing the SIM card and placing a device between the handset and the SIM card and allowing it to operate for a few days and extracting the KI, or secret code"

You think so?

http://www.imserba.com/forum/sim-card-cloning-basics-all-you-wanted-know-t139291/

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:23pm:

Quote: And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof? Another lie.  There is not even one legally enforceable finding against Thomson. are you really that stupid? obviuusly yes. the FWA has found 181 LEGALLY ENFORCABLE breaches of the law. and they intend to take it thru teh courts and have in fact already done so against some other HSU people  you really should look up some while you type your drivel.

Breaches that will soon be tested in the Federal Court.

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 5:43pm:

Quote: EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Around the traps, I meet some odd characters, none less so than 'Mellie' who will just make up whatever she needs to suit her position.  She posts links, which, when you check, have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. This delusional Mr. Liar Long Time is another Mellie.  Give me DRaH anytime. So, Mr. Lie Long Time, may I ask that you produce links which support those claims? :D

I ask Mr Lie Long Time to join my forum months ago to be a mod and 5 minutes later mellie join the forum.

wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 8:39pm:

Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 5:43pm: Quote: EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Around the traps, I meet some odd characters, none less so than 'Mellie' who will just make up whatever she needs to suit her position.  She posts links, which, when you check, have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. This delusional Mr. Liar Long Time is another Mellie.  Give me DRaH anytime. So, Mr. Lie Long Time, may I ask that you produce links which support those claims? :D I ask Mr Lie Long Time to join my forum months ago to be a mod and 5 minutes later mellie join the forum.

I'll do it - what's the link?

Maqqa wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:21pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 2:51pm: When will you realise that if you take away his "innocent until proven guilty" you take away everyones presumption of innocence? We cant set that precedent. SOB That's under a criminal investigation In circumstances like this - the findings of the legislated body finds you guilty then you are guilty. It's up to you to prove your innocence The ATO is a prime example of this

Then why the need to follow up with civil charges and send the report to the DPP?

Do you feel that the main person lodging the claim is the spouse of the 2IC of fair work and that he was the person who lodged the complaint which triggered the task force investigation?

Looks like a very serious conflict of interest to me, how well do you feel that Mrs Jackson's roll would have been investigated by her significant other.

I would think that this relationship alone makes the report absolutly worthless.

Quote:

he then steals $500.000 and on top of that he has an American Express card..

Link please..............????????

:)

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 8:44pm:

Quote: he then steals $500.000 and on top of that he has an American Express card.. Link please..............???????? :)

If only I had some spare links.

Dnarever wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 8:43pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:21pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 2:51pm: When will you realise that if you take away his "innocent until proven guilty" you take away everyones presumption of innocence? We cant set that precedent. SOB That's under a criminal investigation In circumstances like this - the findings of the legislated body finds you guilty then you are guilty. It's up to you to prove your innocence The ATO is a prime example of this Then why the need to follow up with civil charges and send the report to the DPP? Do you feel that the main person lodging the claim is the spouse of the 2IC of fair work and that he was the person who lodged the complaint which triggered the task force investigation? Looks like a very serious conflict of interest to me, how well do you feel that Mrs Jackson's roll would have been investigated by her significant other. I would think that this relationship alone makes the report absolutly worthless.

Because there are 181 breaches and potentially they are not dealt with just one area

As for the conflict of interest - this was evident to Gillard in the last 4 years so why didn't she do anything about it?

If there's a conflict of interest then what does that say about the FWA which is the creation of Gillard

Quote:

Because there are 181 breaches ......

Another lie, Mellie.

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 9:06pm:

Quote: Because there are 181 breaches ...... Another lie, Mellie.

The report by FWA does detail 181 findings that will be tested in the Federal Court.

wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 8:39pm:

Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 5:43pm: Quote: EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Around the traps, I meet some odd characters, none less so than 'Mellie' who will just make up whatever she needs to suit her position.  She posts links, which, when you check, have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. This delusional Mr. Liar Long Time is another Mellie.  Give me DRaH anytime. So, Mr. Lie Long Time, may I ask that you produce links which support those claims? :D I ask Mr Lie Long Time to join my forum months ago to be a mod and 5 minutes later mellie join the forum.

and on the subject of socks... you just used one of yorus by accident, aussie. funny that you should get caught out using a sock to complain about someone else's supposed (and unproven) sock.

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 1:04pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 12:58pm: I believe there were 181 breaches found by the FWA. Your attempt to use the amounts to trivialise this issue is pathetic Well I've read the entire 1100 pages and what ALL the charges boil down to is Thomson not getting proper approval for the expenditure And he may face some civil charges for not doing the paperwork correctly.  But civil charges don't mean squat to his position in Parliament I'm summarising these charges and making the assertion that it's reasonable to assume he was authorised to expense the Union's money on winning that seat for the ALP. Does anyone really think that the Executive / Council controlled by the man who was National President of the ALP would not have approved this expense at the height of the Your Rights At Work campaign?  Or at the very least that it's not reasonable to assume this?

the FWA report is just one element. The police didn't raid the HSU offices recntly because of things in the FWA report.

Applying Ockam's razor: why would his 'rivals' go to such extraordinary lengths to discredit him? What did he do to get up their noses so much? He didn't say.

In short WHY would they frame him? WHat would be the point of it all?

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 9:06pm:

Quote: Because there are 181 breaches ...... Another lie, Mellie.

But it's true, it's true , it's TRUE !!!
(apologies to Lily von Schtupp)

Soren wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 11:04pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:04pm: Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 12:58pm: I believe there were 181 breaches found by the FWA. Your attempt to use the amounts to trivialise this issue is pathetic Well I've read the entire 1100 pages and what ALL the charges boil down to is Thomson not getting proper approval for the expenditure And he may face some civil charges for not doing the paperwork correctly.  But civil charges don't mean squat to his position in Parliament I'm summarising these charges and making the assertion that it's reasonable to assume he was authorised to expense the Union's money on winning that seat for the ALP. Does anyone really think that the Executive / Council controlled by the man who was National President of the ALP would not have approved this expense at the height of the Your Rights At Work campaign?  Or at the very least that it's not reasonable to assume this? the FWA report is just one element. The police didn't raid the HSU offices recntly because of things in the FWA report. Applying Ockam's razor: why would his 'rivals' go to such extraordinary lengths to discredit him? What did he do to get up their noses so much? He didn't say. In short WHY would they frame him? WHat would be the point of it all?

I think he tried to explain that he put in measures to clean up the union and they didn't like it or something to that affect. Hope someone has more detail for ya but I am not going looking for it atm.

Thomson's explanation is falling apart...

A Current Affair last night revealed that, on top of $6000 used on his union credit cards on prostitutes, another $770 identified in the Fair Work Australia report on the MP's cards had been paid to a company called Boardroom Escorts in Sydney for in May, 2005.

The payment was made to Internat Immobilaire, a cover name for Boardroom Escorts, the program alleged. The program has interviewed the former prostitute who worked for the agency. She has signed a statutory declaration that she provided services to Thomson.

A Current Affair said it had yet to pay the woman but a fee was being negotiated if the story went ahead.

The report stated that Mr Thomson was in Sydney on May 7, 2005 when the transaction allegedly took place. Mr Thomson had previously identified the transaction on his Commonwealth Bank Mastercard as a 'dinner function'.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-news/escorts-claims-could-sink-mp-craig-thomson/story-fn7q4q9f-1226366166474

You right-wing loony's should lay off Thompson for now. It is apparent that he is at breaking point. Do you want to be responsible for causing a man to suicide?

He could well be surfing the net to see what's being said about him and come across this forum. I have quite often googled for something and Ozpolitics comes up, so it's not out of the realm of possible.

Wouldn't it be horrible if your post alone was the straw that broke the camels back?

Even Tony has the brains to lay off Thompson and attack Gillard instead, he figures she can take it. Tony hasn't really got the brains, someone told him to in the light of a previous Ministerial suicide.

Anyway, just saying you've all bullied sufficiently now to call it quits without feeling like losers, which incidentally you are.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 7:17am:

You right-wing loony's should lay off Thompson for now. It is apparent that he is at breaking point. Do you want to be responsible for causing a man to suicide? He could well be surfing the net to see what's being said about him and come across this forum. I have quite often googled for something and Ozpolitics comes up, so it's not out of the realm of possible. Wouldn't it be horrible if your post alone was the straw that broke the camels back? Even Tony has the brains to lay off Thompson and attack Gillard instead, he figures she can take it. Tony hasn't really got the brains, someone told him to in the light of a previous Ministerial suicide. Anyway, just saying you've all bullied sufficiently now to call it quits without feeling like losers, which incidentally you are.

Why? He brought this on himself and is making a mockery of the federal parliament. He doesn't deserve the position he is clinging to. If he can't take the heat, he should just quit for his and his family's own good.

Quote:

Applying Ockam's razor: why would his 'rivals' go to such extraordinary lengths to discredit him? What did he do to get up their noses so much? He didn't say.

He did say.

SOB

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 7:20am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:17am: You right-wing loony's should lay off Thompson for now. It is apparent that he is at breaking point. Do you want to be responsible for causing a man to suicide? He could well be surfing the net to see what's being said about him and come across this forum. I have quite often googled for something and Ozpolitics comes up, so it's not out of the realm of possible. Wouldn't it be horrible if your post alone was the straw that broke the camels back? Even Tony has the brains to lay off Thompson and attack Gillard instead, he figures she can take it. Tony hasn't really got the brains, someone told him to in the light of a previous Ministerial suicide. Anyway, just saying you've all bullied sufficiently now to call it quits without feeling like losers, which incidentally you are. Why? He brought this on himself and is making a mockery of the federal parliament. He doesn't deserve the position he is clinging to. If he can't take the heat, he should just quit for his and his family's own good.

If you send someone to their death because you slander them to the point of no return, what does that make you? I hope you feel truly proud and patriotic. You're doing it for Australia, I know.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 7:17am:

You right-wing loony's should lay off Thompson for now. It is apparent that he is at breaking point. Do you want to be responsible for causing a man to suicide? He could well be surfing the net to see what's being said about him and come across this forum. I have quite often googled for something and Ozpolitics comes up, so it's not out of the realm of possible. Wouldn't it be horrible if your post alone was the straw that broke the camels back? Even Tony has the brains to lay off Thompson and attack Gillard instead, he figures she can take it. Tony hasn't really got the brains, someone told him to in the light of a previous Ministerial suicide. Anyway, just saying you've all bullied sufficiently now to call it quits without feeling like losers, which incidentally you are.

Lay off. Mate it has just begun with this new $770 issue. No wonder he came out saying lay off. He has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar and wants it stopped before it gets any closer to the truth.

If he is fair dinkum that he is under too much pressure, then get out of politics, because he has caused this rightly so pressure toward him. It is he who can help himself.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 7:25am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:20am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:17am: You right-wing loony's should lay off Thompson for now. It is apparent that he is at breaking point. Do you want to be responsible for causing a man to suicide? He could well be surfing the net to see what's being said about him and come across this forum. I have quite often googled for something and Ozpolitics comes up, so it's not out of the realm of possible. Wouldn't it be horrible if your post alone was the straw that broke the camels back? Even Tony has the brains to lay off Thompson and attack Gillard instead, he figures she can take it. Tony hasn't really got the brains, someone told him to in the light of a previous Ministerial suicide. Anyway, just saying you've all bullied sufficiently now to call it quits without feeling like losers, which incidentally you are. Why? He brought this on himself and is making a mockery of the federal parliament. He doesn't deserve the position he is clinging to. If he can't take the heat, he should just quit for his and his family's own good. If you send someone to their death because you slander them to the point of no return, what does that make you? I hope you feel truly proud and patriotic. You're doing it for Australia, I know.

I don't relish the thought of Thomson contemplating suicide, but he must be held accountable for his actions and he did create this situation himself. Would you be so sympathetic if we were talking about Joe Hockey or Bronwyn Bishop or any other Coalition frontbencher? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 7:29am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:20am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:17am: You right-wing loony's should lay off Thompson for now. It is apparent that he is at breaking point. Do you want to be responsible for causing a man to suicide? He could well be surfing the net to see what's being said about him and come across this forum. I have quite often googled for something and Ozpolitics comes up, so it's not out of the realm of possible. Wouldn't it be horrible if your post alone was the straw that broke the camels back? Even Tony has the brains to lay off Thompson and attack Gillard instead, he figures she can take it. Tony hasn't really got the brains, someone told him to in the light of a previous Ministerial suicide. Anyway, just saying you've all bullied sufficiently now to call it quits without feeling like losers, which incidentally you are. Why? He brought this on himself and is making a mockery of the federal parliament. He doesn't deserve the position he is clinging to. If he can't take the heat, he should just quit for his and his family's own good. If you send someone to their death because you slander them to the point of no return, what does that make you? I hope you feel truly proud and patriotic. You're doing it for Australia, I know. I don't relish the thought of Thomson contemplating suicide, but he must be held accountable for his actions and he did create this situation himself. Would you be so sympathetic if we were talking about Joe Hockey or Bronwyn Bishop or any other Coalition frontbencher? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Yes I would. I put life before politics. My life is not ruled by what some stupid pollie does or doesn't do.

It's always a pathetic ploy by the righties on here to put it back on the poster. I won't take your guilt, it's yours to live with.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 7:49am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:29am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:20am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:17am: You right-wing loony's should lay off Thompson for now. It is apparent that he is at breaking point. Do you want to be responsible for causing a man to suicide? He could well be surfing the net to see what's being said about him and come across this forum. I have quite often googled for something and Ozpolitics comes up, so it's not out of the realm of possible. Wouldn't it be horrible if your post alone was the straw that broke the camels back? Even Tony has the brains to lay off Thompson and attack Gillard instead, he figures she can take it. Tony hasn't really got the brains, someone told him to in the light of a previous Ministerial suicide. Anyway, just saying you've all bullied sufficiently now to call it quits without feeling like losers, which incidentally you are. Why? He brought this on himself and is making a mockery of the federal parliament. He doesn't deserve the position he is clinging to. If he can't take the heat, he should just quit for his and his family's own good. If you send someone to their death because you slander them to the point of no return, what does that make you? I hope you feel truly proud and patriotic. You're doing it for Australia, I know. I don't relish the thought of Thomson contemplating suicide, but he must be held accountable for his actions and he did create this situation himself. Would you be so sympathetic if we were talking about Joe Hockey or Bronwyn Bishop or any other Coalition frontbencher? Yeah, I didn't think so. Yes I would. I put life before politics. My life is not ruled by what some stupid pollie does or doesn't do. It's always a pathetic ploy by the righties on here to put it back on the poster. I won't take your guilt, it's yours to live with.

It is up to thomson to save himself. It is not up to anyone else.

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 10:05pm:

wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 8:39pm: Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 5:43pm: Quote: EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Around the traps, I meet some odd characters, none less so than 'Mellie' who will just make up whatever she needs to suit her position.  She posts links, which, when you check, have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. This delusional Mr. Liar Long Time is another Mellie.  Give me DRaH anytime. So, Mr. Lie Long Time, may I ask that you produce links which support those claims? :D I ask Mr Lie Long Time to join my forum months ago to be a mod and 5 minutes later mellie join the forum. and on the subject of socks... you just used one of yorus by accident, aussie. funny that you should get caught out using a sock to complain about someone else's supposed (and unproven) sock.

For your information Mr Lie Long Time aussie is a member of my forum and he lives in a different state then I do. I have check out his ISP address on my forum which any of the mods on here can do.

So tell me Mr Lie Long Time why did mellie try to join mine forum 5 minutes after I ask you to join?

So mozza why don't you check out aussie and my ISP address and tell Mr Lie Long Time that he is wrong again

here is a link to check them both out

http://whatismyipaddress.com/

If mozza wants to he can PM me your ISP address and I will see if it the same as mellie or I can PM mellie ISP address if he wants it

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 7:25am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:20am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:17am: You right-wing loony's should lay off Thompson for now. It is apparent that he is at breaking point. Do you want to be responsible for causing a man to suicide? He could well be surfing the net to see what's being said about him and come across this forum. I have quite often googled for something and Ozpolitics comes up, so it's not out of the realm of possible. Wouldn't it be horrible if your post alone was the straw that broke the camels back? Even Tony has the brains to lay off Thompson and attack Gillard instead, he figures she can take it. Tony hasn't really got the brains, someone told him to in the light of a previous Ministerial suicide. Anyway, just saying you've all bullied sufficiently now to call it quits without feeling like losers, which incidentally you are. Why? He brought this on himself and is making a mockery of the federal parliament. He doesn't deserve the position he is clinging to. If he can't take the heat, he should just quit for his and his family's own good. If you send someone to their death because you slander them to the point of no return, what does that make you? I hope you feel truly proud and patriotic. You're doing it for Australia, I know.

You make a valid point Pansi, but where are his ALP collegues telling him to resign for his own good?

longweekend58 wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 8:20am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:20am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:17am: You right-wing loony's should lay off Thompson for now. It is apparent that he is at breaking point. Do you want to be responsible for causing a man to suicide? He could well be surfing the net to see what's being said about him and come across this forum. I have quite often googled for something and Ozpolitics comes up, so it's not out of the realm of possible. Wouldn't it be horrible if your post alone was the straw that broke the camels back? Even Tony has the brains to lay off Thompson and attack Gillard instead, he figures she can take it. Tony hasn't really got the brains, someone told him to in the light of a previous Ministerial suicide. Anyway, just saying you've all bullied sufficiently now to call it quits without feeling like losers, which incidentally you are. Why? He brought this on himself and is making a mockery of the federal parliament. He doesn't deserve the position he is clinging to. If he can't take the heat, he should just quit for his and his family's own good. If you send someone to their death because you slander them to the point of no return, what does that make you? I hope you feel truly proud and patriotic. You're doing it for Australia, I know. You make a valid point Pansi, but where are his ALP collegues telling him to resign for his own good?

Maybe he won't stand down because it will look like he is guilty. Who knows? He might not want to give in to bullying and intimidation. He has said he wants his day in court.

Anyway Abbott said he will stop the hounding. The media should too.

mozzaok wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:05pm: mozzaok wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 5:45pm: Quote: Your explanation is idioitc but the best claim of all is that you read the entire 1100 pages of the report. You didnt and no protestations will convince me otherwise. If you had, there is no way you woudl be defending this scumbag in the brainless manner in which you are. EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Sounds like you are living there with him. -Longy, or if you prefer, the appropriately humourous sobriquet that Aussie has been using, "Mr Lie Long Time" lol With someone with your track record on this forum Longy, getting caught out lying, so often, and for so long, and ALWAYS whilst championing a stance intended to portray the Liberal Party in a more favourable light, it seems pretty rich that you have the gall to be throwing the accusations about the credibility of others, so recklessly. Your track record is so bad, if you told someone it was fine and sunny, they would grab an umbrella before going out. In the early days I thought you may have been just a bit delusional in your pro Liberal fervour, but when you continued to repeat things that had already been proven false, because doing so was in your mind, supporting the party line, I drew the conclusion that you chose to lie deliberately. Not many people do that. It really is not a good look. List the lies. go on. AS a moderator - which is in itself a joke - you should be held to a higher standard. But of course.,.. I forget... the standard is now 'presumption of innocence' and nothing more. SO in the grand tradition of aussie the wannbe lawyer I demand that you show my 'lies' and list substantive proof. And keep in mind that 'error' is not 'lie' and 'lie' requires you to prove (remember that presumption of innocence again) that it was a lie said in full knowledge of the truth. Do you have the character to support your allegation or will you just fade away as you so often do? I DARE YOU TO DO SO. SHOW US YOUR CHARACTER I may go with, "I read it in the Australian", or "anyone with more than half a brain knows that", or any of the myriad reasons you have used to declare your certain knowledge of Thomson's guilt. As for your prove it challenge, how about this? I will promise to tell you next time you tell a deliberate, provable lie. I figure that won't be too long, and will probably be quicker than having to troll though old posts to provide you with evidence you alone would deny anyway.

I too will wait for that I am sick of lefties.. yourself aussie shippy calling everyone a liar.. except gillard of course..

yet never show the evidence concidering its always longy that gets the barbs I would think by now you would have a huge list???? hahah not so.. anyone surprised..

quoting from the media doesnt make it a lie..

it just gets up your nose and you know it.. you dont want to be reminded of what an incredible situation your messiahs have put us in..

if it was the Libs I would feel exactly the same..  "god please make this all go away"


well it would have done if she had sent him packing from day one.

so stop getting crappy it isnt our fault..

and stop calling people liars without the proof.. thank you very much,.. just because one reads a different newspaper to someone else doesnt make them a liar.

Quote:

Anyway Abbott said he will stop the hounding. The media should too.

who knows if he actually will but I betcha the media wont.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 8:33am:

Quote: Anyway Abbott said he will stop the hounding. The media should too. who knows if he actually will but I betcha the media wont. SOB

As they shouldnt

progressiveslol wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 8:33am: Quote: Anyway Abbott said he will stop the hounding. The media should too. who knows if he actually will but I betcha the media wont. SOB As they shouldnt

Why not?

SOB

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 2:48pm:

Karnal wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 2:33pm: PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: No one's claiming access to the Drivers License - only access to the number and you know what, I'm the Administrator and (identity) Verifying Officer of our company's Corporate Credit Cards and I DO have copies of every person's Drivers License who has one of those cards. The number? When you're verifying your credit card, you need the plastic. The license was photo ID. A photocopy is not going to cut it. I'm beginning the think you didn't read my wonderfully composed piece, you're assuming the merchant is reputable, know a lot reputable knock shops? Quote: PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: No doubt he's guilty of poor governance but most Unions are - they're not businesses run by professionals.  Unions file tax returns and require annual audits like any other business. How could they possibly ignore $500,000 of mistaken spending - or even $6000? No1 You've already agree it's only $6000 of mistaken spending I would suspect you're being disengenuous to continue bringing up the $500k figure but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt  :D Unions don't file Tax Returns because they're exempt from income tax, what they do is file Financial Returns to FWA. The financial reports covering this period were filed, late, by KJ as she took over as National Secretary the moment Thomson was delcared elected to Parliament. She didn't sign them though and this is what the FWA asserting against KJ relate to - late filing of unsigned Financial Returns [quote] PoliticalReality wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Karnal wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 1:11pm: You as much as admit in your opening paragraph that the expenditure of the vast majority of the money is not an issue, this leaves us with $6k that's been misused and he has provided a defence on this - he doesn't need to prove it, he's not a police agengcy with investigative powers, he has no means to prove it and you know what?  In this country you don't have to prove you're innocent - the authorities need to prove you're guilty If he wants to defend his record, he needs to prove it. The very fact that he's in this position means that he needs to prove it. The standing of the government and the labour movement as a whole has been tarnished by it. Even more reason to prove it. The stakes are huge. I'm not saying he's guilty of a crime. But do you really think that spending union money on a federal campaign is legit? Some of it maybe. After all, it was a campaign against Workchoices. But half a million? It's legit if the Executive and the Council think it is, and I assert that they did.  $500k equates to about $6 a member, seems a small price to pay to have WorkChoice brought down - some would say a bargain. [quote] It's not good enough to say that he didn't break the law. This is an example of unbelievable recklessness. Worse - it's blatant exploitation. The union paid for a house in Sydney when he lived an hour and a half away on the Central Coast. The union paid for his wife's holidays. The union paid for his ridiculous annual salary, and he put every other living expense he incurred on his credit card. But that wasn't enough. He got the nod to stand for a federal seat, and he put his campaign on the card as well. And somewhere in the process, other things got whacked on - $6000 for prostitutes. And he approved it. How can you possibly defend this? How can you say he doesn't need to prove anything? Even the most rusted-on Labor hack understands he's been caught with his hand in the till and needs to go. The Craig Thomson "affair" will go down in history as the Khemlani affair of the Gillard government. Even the Khemlani loans affair was understandable. The Whitlam government needed foreign money during a recession to develop Australian resources. Craig Thomson needed money - for what?

99% of the money in question was needed to destroy WorkChoices - you really think $6 a member was too high a price to pay?

Not me, and I guarantee not the people who were tasked with approving the expenditure[/quote]

You raise good points, PR, and I'm glad you've corrected my understanding of unions and the whole process.

However, the fact that he spent union fees on his election campaign - and the hos - is corrupt.

Not from an ACAC point of view - but from a popular point of view.

He didn't need to fritter away $6 from each member to stop Workchoices. He didn't need to incur the costs he did. He had his nose deep in the trough, and who can blame KJ for not signing off on the expenses?

But thanks for clarifying the process for me.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 9:39am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 8:36am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 8:33am: Quote: Anyway Abbott said he will stop the hounding. The media should too. who knows if he actually will but I betcha the media wont. SOB As they shouldnt Why not? SOB

so if and when a Lib plays up you wont mind a blackout on the news about it then???..


good to hear as so far when any lib has stepped on toes.. a leftie cant wait to get it up on here.. and in they all come.. boots and all..


didnt you notice that THOMO didnt point his ugly finger at any lib saying they were bringing him down.. oh I know he had his little tanny at the end..he probably did that for gillards permission to let him have his say in cowards castle..

but which lib did he claim brought this all down on him?????

this has been going on for 2 years... without the FWA.. which as far as I know was pretty much secret until the idiot decided to sue.

maybe he is so delusional he thinks he had all the rights under the sun to do what he did.. or has been accused of doing..as all along he claims HE HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG>.

so why 9 investigations????????????

cods wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 9:51am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:39am: progressiveslol wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 8:36am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 8:33am: Quote: Anyway Abbott said he will stop the hounding. The media should too. who knows if he actually will but I betcha the media wont. SOB As they shouldnt Why not? SOB so if and when a Lib plays up you wont mind a blackout on the news about it then???.. good to hear as so far when any lib has stepped on toes.. a leftie cant wait to get it up on here.. and in they all come.. boots and all.. didnt you notice that THOMO didnt point his ugly finger at any lib saying they were bringing him down.. oh I know he had his little tanny at the end..he probably did that for gillards permission to let him have his say in cowards castle.. but which lib did he claim brought this all down on him????? this has been going on for 2 years... without the FWA.. which as far as I know was pretty much secret until the idiot decided to sue. maybe he is so delusional he thinks he had all the rights under the sun to do what he did.. or has been accused of doing..as all along he claims HE HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG>. so why 9 investigations????????????

Where did I say anything about a blackout of the news? I just think they should stop the harassment and lynch mob stirring. If theres some "news" well and good but they are going around declaring him a liar. What happens if it turns out he was innocent afterall and the media caused him to suicide or something? They dont care they are a corporation.

It doesnt matter who the heck it is they shouldn't be inciting this thing like they are.


Quote:

so why 9 investigations????????????

Yes. Good question. they find nothing and they try again. Who wants to find something so badly?

SOB

Thompson actually said that it was trial by Tony Abbott and the media. The DPP said there is no case to answer because of lack of credible evidence.

The producer of ACA admitted to Thompson that they are paying the prossie $60,000. Gutter journalism at its best or worst, whatever way you look at it.

I'd admit to it for $30,000. Come on TT, buy me.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

Thompson actually said that it was trial by Tony Abbott and the media. The DPP said there is no case to answer because of lack of credible evidence. The producer of ACA admitted to Thompson that they are paying the prossie $60,000. Gutter journalism at its best or worst, whatever way you look at it. I'd admit to it for $30,000. Come on TT, buy me.

Matty would admit to it for the publicity

Karnal wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 10:21am: Thompson actually said that it was trial by Tony Abbott and the media. The DPP said there is no case to answer because of lack of credible evidence. The producer of ACA admitted to Thompson that they are paying the prossie $60,000. Gutter journalism at its best or worst, whatever way you look at it. I'd admit to it for $30,000. Come on TT, buy me. Matty would admit to it for the publicity

Damn! I've been done over by matty.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 10:30am:

Karnal wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 10:25am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 10:21am: Thompson actually said that it was trial by Tony Abbott and the media. The DPP said there is no case to answer because of lack of credible evidence. The producer of ACA admitted to Thompson that they are paying the prossie $60,000. Gutter journalism at its best or worst, whatever way you look at it. I'd admit to it for $30,000. Come on TT, buy me. Matty would admit to it for the publicity Damn! I've been done over by matty.

They will roll out someone with a blurry face who looks a lot like Julie Bishop after she caught a bus.

Any old crack whore look alike will do..even Julie Bishop  ;D