If he is unable to attend Parliament next week, which is looking very probable, will the Coalition do the fair thing by providing a pair?

TheGreenLight wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 7:46pm:

If he is unable to attend Parliament next week, which is looking very probable, will the Coalition do the fair thing by providing a pair?

I don't think they have to. He sits as a Independent , he even tried to vote with the coalition once which was when phony tony ran out of the chambers  like a six year old to try to avoid  looking like the hypocrite we all know and most dislike.

bldy greens voters. couldnt rub 2 brain cells together between the lot.

TheGreenLight wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 7:46pm:

If he is unable to attend Parliament next week, which is looking very probable, will the Coalition do the fair thing by providing a pair?

It wont be next week, he doesn’t have to attend if parliament is sitting.

Since Thomo don't have the fortitude to quit - we'll provide him with a pair

Maqqa wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 11:23pm:

Since Thomo don't have the fortitude to quit - we'll provide him with a pair

hahahahaha..

maybe gillards!!!!!!!!... she seems to have more than one set.

.....he could alwAys buy a pair on his union credit card

TheGreenLight wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 7:46pm:

will the Coalition do the fair thing by providing a pair?

What happened to his own balls? And why should the Coalition provide a pair of ball to a guy who has left the Labor Party benches?

What a silly question - predictably from a Green.

Apparently an MP doesn't have to appear in court if parliament is sitting.
What a farce this is!
Someone who is accused of 149 counts of fraud is excused from appearing in court, the court schedules have to be continuously disrupted, to allow that person to attend and vote in our parliament.

As to providing a pair, this issue doesn't even arise.

hadrian_now wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 11:27am:

Apparently an MP doesn't have to appear in court if parliament is sitting. What a farce this is! Someone who is accused of 149 counts of fraud is excused from appearing in court, the court schedules have to be continuously disrupted, to allow that person to attend and vote in our parliament. As to providing a pair, this issue doesn't even arise.

Civil or criminal or both. I havent had time to verify. Anyone know?

The Libs should know, given they're the only party to have a sitting member appear in court recently. Did Mary jo fruit Loops appear in court during sitting weeks?

skippy. wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 11:49am:

The Libs should know, given they're the only party to have a sitting member appear in court recently. Did Mary jo fruit Loops appear in court during sitting weeks?

why dont you ask Milton Orkopoulous - drug dealer and child rapist. he was arrested while in parliament. Labor Mp of course.

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:06pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 11:49am: The Libs should know, given they're the only party to have a sitting member appear in court recently. Did Mary jo fruit Loops appear in court during sitting weeks? why dont you ask Milton Orkopoulous - drug dealer and child rapist. he was arrested while in parliament. Labor Mp of course.

Was he a fed? Last time I checked the only person charged and FOUND GUILTY  with criminal offences like assault was Mary J fruitloops. Thomson hasn't even been to court yet, but don't let that stop you, hypocritical intellectual pigmy.

hadrian_now wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 11:27am:

Apparently an MP doesn't have to appear in court if parliament is sitting. What a farce this is! Someone who is accused of 149 counts of fraud is excused from appearing in court, the court schedules have to be continuously disrupted, to allow that person to attend and vote in our parliament. As to providing a pair, this issue doesn't even arise.

I'm currently reading Geoffrey Robertson's, The Tyrannicide Brief, a story of the barrister who prosecuted the trial of Charles I. It provides a wonderful insight into how important these seemingly ridiculous rules are in maintaining a healthy democracy. Thomson is still innocent in the eyes of the law and it is vital that the power invested in our parliamentarians is protected. The justification of the laws that protect Thomson's right to represent his electorate should not be conflated with the actions of the man himself.

Thomson may well be the cockroach many of us suspect him to be, however, we shouldn't be trashing our political system to spite one man.

TheGreenLight wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 7:46pm:

If he is unable to attend Parliament next week, which is looking very probable, will the Coalition do the fair thing by providing a pair?

Under the Australian Constitution, he CANNOT ( ... nor ANY member of ANY parliament) be forcibly removed from a sitting -  over such matters

( ... the section ? ... NO IDEA)


So, the question is IRRELEVENT

Poor Craig - look what he's been through -

The Herald Sun today:

---

This pair should do, since having none is worse.

http://sugarmtnfarm.com/blog/uploaded_images2009/BoarSpotBalls8785w.jpg