Why would anyone go to this fundraiser?
Thommo is a sleaze, a crook and he ripped off HSU members...he should be put in jail for a very very long time.
And anyone that supports him is just as bad as he is

http://au.news.yahoo.com/election/a/-/article/18153711/low-fundraiser-turnout-for-craig-thomsons-legal-bills/

This was posted in another Thread recently and provided a timely reminder:


Quote:

First they came for the communists,     and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.     Then they came for the socialists,     and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.     Then they came for the trade unionists,     and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.     Then they came for me,     and there was no one left to speak for me.

Aussie wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:31pm:

This was posted in another Thread recently and provided a timely reminder: Quote:     First they came for the communists,     and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.     Then they came for the socialists,     and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.     Then they came for the trade unionists,     and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.     Then they came for me,     and there was no one left to speak for me.

I should be very worried because Im all of the above  :D

Will there be hookers on tap at this fundraiser?

Verge wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Will there be hookers on tap at this fundraiser?

Not if Thommo has to pay for them out of his own pocket  :D

Why would anyone support Thommo?

Maybe they think he is innocent ??

I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:23pm:

Why would anyone go to this fundraiser? Thommo is a sleaze, a crook and he ripped off HSU members...he should be put in jail for a very very long time. And anyone that supports him is just as bad as he is

So, he's been convicted then?

:-/

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:23pm: Why would anyone go to this fundraiser? Thommo is a sleaze, a crook and he ripped off HSU members...he should be put in jail for a very very long time. And anyone that supports him is just as bad as he is So, he's been convicted then? :-/

When he's found innocent I'll send him $20 but I reckon my money is safe

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:57pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:23pm: Why would anyone go to this fundraiser? Thommo is a sleaze, a crook and he ripped off HSU members...he should be put in jail for a very very long time. And anyone that supports him is just as bad as he is So, he's been convicted then? :-/ When he's found innocent I'll send him $20 but I reckon my money is safe

And if he's found not guilty, you'll accept that decision?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:57pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:23pm: Why would anyone go to this fundraiser? Thommo is a sleaze, a crook and he ripped off HSU members...he should be put in jail for a very very long time. And anyone that supports him is just as bad as he is So, he's been convicted then? :-/ When he's found innocent I'll send him $20 but I reckon my money is safe And if he's found not guilty, you'll accept that decision?

Yep..and I'll send him the $20 to help pay for his legal bills but until then why would anyone help someone who may have ripped off lowly paid union members.

Aussie wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:31pm:

This was posted in another Thread recently and provided a timely reminder: Quote:     First they came for the communists,     and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.     Then they came for the socialists,     and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.     Then they came for the trade unionists,     and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.     Then they came for me,     and there was no one left to speak for me.

G*d bless you Aussie and Mr Thomson. It's people like the brave Mr Thomson who are in there fighting for the down-trodden, the voiceless, the wretched, and others who lack the ability to articulate what it is they desire. I've even heard Mr Thomson has conducted several interviews with 'sex workers' to find out what it is they want and how he can assist them.

Don't stop fighting Mr Thomson. May G*d give you strength.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either.

1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it.
2. What has Abbott done on the same level?

matty wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level?

Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him.
Thats a sad list in anyones books.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 1:59pm:

matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him. Thats a sad list in anyones books.

I thank you in advance for your forthcoming evidence and proof.

matty wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 2:21pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:59pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him. Thats a sad list in anyones books. I thank you in advance for your forthcoming evidence and proof.

So Matty, exactly how much were you charging Thomo when you used to work at the brothel? That $200 g wasn't union money was it?

Verge wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Will there be hookers on tap at this fundraiser?

Yes indeed, and what about him handing out credit cards for anyone to use, that is his defence BTW.

John Smith wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:21pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:59pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him. Thats a sad list in anyones books. I thank you in advance for your forthcoming evidence and proof. So Matty, exactly how much were you charging Thomo when you used to work at the brothel? That $200 g wasn't union money was it?

He'd need over a thousand grand to have any part of me.

matty wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 2:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:23pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:21pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:59pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him. Thats a sad list in anyones books. I thank you in advance for your forthcoming evidence and proof. So Matty, exactly how much were you charging Thomo when you used to work at the brothel? That $200 g wasn't union money was it? He'd need over a thousand grand to have any part of me.

but you would sell you ar$e for the right amount of money despite claiming you aren't gay? I can see why you like the liberal party so much.

John Smith wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 2:44pm:

matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:40pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:23pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:21pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:59pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him. Thats a sad list in anyones books. I thank you in advance for your forthcoming evidence and proof. So Matty, exactly how much were you charging Thomo when you used to work at the brothel? That $200 g wasn't union money was it? He'd need over a thousand grand to have any part of me. but you would sell you ar$e for the right amount of money despite claiming you aren't gay? I can see why you like the liberal party so much.

Your interest in my sex life is really bordering on obsessive.

matty wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 2:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:23pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:21pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:59pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him. Thats a sad list in anyones books. I thank you in advance for your forthcoming evidence and proof. So Matty, exactly how much were you charging Thomo when you used to work at the brothel? That $200 g wasn't union money was it? He'd need over a thousand grand to have any part of me.

that's pretty cheap, matty.

matty wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:44pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:40pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:23pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:21pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:59pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him. Thats a sad list in anyones books. I thank you in advance for your forthcoming evidence and proof. So Matty, exactly how much were you charging Thomo when you used to work at the brothel? That $200 g wasn't union money was it? He'd need over a thousand grand to have any part of me. but you would sell you ar$e for the right amount of money despite claiming you aren't gay? I can see why you like the liberal party so much. Your interest in my sex life is really bordering on obsessive.

as always you misunderstand ... it's not your sex life I find interesting, rather, it's your lack of a sex life that's funny

matty wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level?

He has??

'More or less', eh???

Do tell......

:)

John Smith wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 2:44pm:

matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:40pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:23pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:21pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:59pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him. Thats a sad list in anyones books. I thank you in advance for your forthcoming evidence and proof. So Matty, exactly how much were you charging Thomo when you used to work at the brothel? That $200 g wasn't union money was it? He'd need over a thousand grand to have any part of me. but you would sell you ar$e for the right amount of money despite claiming you aren't gay? I can see why you like the liberal party so much.

-------------

John Smith to Matty:  Would you sleep with me for a million dollars. 

Matty(indignantly): “Of course not, what kind of person do you think I am?

John Smith:  “Matty, we’ve already established what kind of person you are, now we’re just negotiating the price.”

;)

matty wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 2:21pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:59pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him. Thats a sad list in anyones books. I thank you in advance for your forthcoming evidence and proof.

Proof please, leftards.

Lobo wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 5:25pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:44pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:40pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:23pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:21pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:59pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him. Thats a sad list in anyones books. I thank you in advance for your forthcoming evidence and proof. So Matty, exactly how much were you charging Thomo when you used to work at the brothel? That $200 g wasn't union money was it? He'd need over a thousand grand to have any part of me. but you would sell you ar$e for the right amount of money despite claiming you aren't gay? I can see why you like the liberal party so much. ------------- John Smith to Matty:  Would you sleep with me for a million dollars.  Matty(indignantly): “Of course not, what kind of person do you think I am? John Smith:  “Matty, we’ve already established what kind of person you are, now we’re just negotiating the price.” ;)

;D ;D ;D

matty wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:44pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:40pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:23pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:21pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:59pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him. Thats a sad list in anyones books. I thank you in advance for your forthcoming evidence and proof. So Matty, exactly how much were you charging Thomo when you used to work at the brothel? That $200 g wasn't union money was it? He'd need over a thousand grand to have any part of me. but you would sell you ar$e for the right amount of money despite claiming you aren't gay? I can see why you like the liberal party so much. Your interest in my sex life is really bordering on obsessive.

These leftards want to have sex with you, Matty, it’s revoltimg.

Name the time and place, leftards. And bring the credit card, thanks.

No glove, no love.

John Smith wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:04pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:44pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:40pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:23pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:21pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:59pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him. Thats a sad list in anyones books. I thank you in advance for your forthcoming evidence and proof. So Matty, exactly how much were you charging Thomo when you used to work at the brothel? That $200 g wasn't union money was it? He'd need over a thousand grand to have any part of me. but you would sell you ar$e for the right amount of money despite claiming you aren't gay? I can see why you like the liberal party so much. Your interest in my sex life is really bordering on obsessive. as always you misunderstand ... it's not your sex life I find interesting, rather, it's your lack of a sex life that's funny

Proof please, leftards.

OP's Wild One bought all 20 tickets to the Thommo soiree. Wild One, his wife, 5 kids, and a few of his neighbours (who weren't quick enough to say they had some other engagement that night) spent a very entertaining evening with Thommo. At about 10 pm the night turned into an X-rated party so the kids had to leave.

Thommo was in there as usual rooting for the worker, the down-trodden, the marginalised, and those not confident in the company of women.

Thommo the hero.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either.

this thread is about THOMO got nothing to do with Abbott..

salad in wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

OP's Wild One bought all 20 tickets to the Thommo soiree. Wild One, his wife, 5 kids, and a few of his neighbours (who weren't quick enough to say they had some other engagement that night) spent a very entertaining evening with Thommo. At about 10 pm the night turned into an X-rated party so the kids had to leave. Thommo was in there as usual rooting for the worker, the down-trodden, the marginalised, and those not confident in the company of women. Thommo the hero.

I reckon they have all bought tickets they secretly admire this guy and want to know how he got away with it so long... 8-)

did you know he is now telling everyone he wasnt the only one to use the credit card... he has trouble remembering it was his phone it was he that had the hotel room.and it was his driving licence.and thats just the brothels..

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

176 charges....what a busy lad..

John Smith wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 3:04pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:44pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:40pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:23pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 2:21pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:59pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? Threatening to punch a women...sexually assaulting another and having another one sent to prison all for daring to compete with him. Thats a sad list in anyones books. I thank you in advance for your forthcoming evidence and proof. So Matty, exactly how much were you charging Thomo when you used to work at the brothel? That $200 g wasn't union money was it? He'd need over a thousand grand to have any part of me. but you would sell you ar$e for the right amount of money despite claiming you aren't gay? I can see why you like the liberal party so much. Your interest in my sex life is really bordering on obsessive. as always you misunderstand ... it's not your sex life I find interesting, rather, it's your lack of a sex life that's funny

Sure. As if you'd know.

Lobo wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :)

He's pleading guilty to the charges.

cods wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 10:00pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. this thread is about THOMO got nothing to do with Abbott..

Come on cods, you shouls know by now that dna can't post any post without mentioning Abbott.

cods wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 10:00pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. this thread is about THOMO got nothing to do with Abbott..

That is the reason that I addressed the question (on topic) before speculating about a similar proposition.

By the way which part of your post was on topic??

Dnarever

That Abbott Abbott Abbott disease seems to be just getting worse, do you really think you have any personal credibility to destroy by your own hands ?

matty wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 12:00am:

Lobo wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 5:12pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :) He's pleading guilty to the charges.

Not from what I've read...you have a link to substantiate your comment?????

RightSadFred wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 9:20am:

Dnarever That Abbott Abbott Abbott disease seems to be just getting worse, do you really think you have any personal credibility to destroy by your own hands ?

Comparison of Abbott in a political context is valid at almost any current topic in Australian politics.

You may not realise this as inappropriate as his performance has been but he in fact is the other option.

When was the last time that you came out being not critical of Rudd and do you feel that your anti Rudd position damages your credibility. I rather think that it is the whole package which does that for you.

All I said here is in relation to the topic of Why would anyone support Thommo? is that I don't understand why anyone would support Abbott either ??

I would think that my lack of understanding of the incredible would be no big deal. I do not see how me not understanding people not seeing straight through Abbott would be considered as even being critical of him.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 1:23am:

cods wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 10:00pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. this thread is about THOMO got nothing to do with Abbott.. That is the reason that I addressed the question (on topic) before speculating about a similar proposition. By the way which part of your post was on topic??

I pulled YOU up.. for a change..

when it suits you its ok...

when I bring THOMO up on other thread.. when you are desperately finding Brough guilty before he is charged.....its not ok...

so in future dont have a swipe at me..or do you just like bullying cods.. when the likes of aussie and john smith. get their hypocritical tails in a knot? little gang of 3.

matty wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 12:02am:

cods wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 10:00pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. this thread is about THOMO got nothing to do with Abbott.. Come on cods, you shouls know by now that dna can't post any post without mentioning Abbott.

I know matty a real fetish..him and skip.. got real problems I am thinking..maybe we should mention psycho in every thread....see what happens.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

did you see psycho in yesterdays paper dressed as Gilligan from Gilligans Island..

hilarious..its a shipwreck alright.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:23pm:

Why would anyone go to this fundraiser? Thommo is a sleaze, a crook and he ripped off HSU members...he should be put in jail for a very very long time. And anyone that supports him is just as bad as he is http://au.news.yahoo.com/election/a/-/article/18153711/low-fundraiser-turnout-for-craig-thomsons-legal-bills/

My guess is he did what every other Union official has been doing for years by ripping off its members.....Thomson's problem is that he was a weak link in a minority Government and his opponents tried to use that to destabilize the ALP.....The Union movement has hired some very questionable people to run its affairs over the years and one can only guess that Thomson is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ripping off members.....I agree with Tony Abbott that unions should be bound by the same rules as any other business with full disclosure.....Thomson is a crook IMO and I have never supported him.....He should have resigned in disgrace years ago!!!

>:( >:( >:(

matty wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 12:00am:

Lobo wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 5:12pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :) He's pleading guilty to the charges.

Do you have a source for this new information?  Or did red baron tell you?


"Mr Thomson has vowed to vigorously defend the allegations."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/craig-thomson-now-faces-173-fraud-related-charges-over-health-services-union-credit-cards/story-fni0fee2-1226648158213


"He has repeatedly denied using Health Services Union credit cards to pay for escorts."

"Despite some media reports, I am not making any admissions."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/thomson-may-not-dispute-credit-card-use/story-fndsip4d-1226681895845

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

matty wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 12:00am: Lobo wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 5:12pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :) He's pleading guilty to the charges. Do you have a source for this new information?  Or did red baron tell you? "Mr Thomson has vowed to vigorously defend the allegations." http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/craig-thomson-now-faces-173-fraud-related-charges-over-health-services-union-credit-cards/story-fni0fee2-1226648158213 "He has repeatedly denied using Health Services Union credit cards to pay for escorts." "Despite some media reports, I am not making any admissions." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/thomson-may-not-dispute-credit-card-use/story-fndsip4d-1226681895845

Perhaps you'll have greater success than me in getting an answer....

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:23pm: Why would anyone go to this fundraiser? Thommo is a sleaze, a crook and he ripped off HSU members...he should be put in jail for a very very long time. And anyone that supports him is just as bad as he is So, he's been convicted then? :-/

well he plans to not contest the charges so its kinda points to his guilt

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 11:09am:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:23pm: Why would anyone go to this fundraiser? Thommo is a sleaze, a crook and he ripped off HSU members...he should be put in jail for a very very long time. And anyone that supports him is just as bad as he is http://au.news.yahoo.com/election/a/-/article/18153711/low-fundraiser-turnout-for-craig-thomsons-legal-bills/ My guess is he did what every other Union official has been doing for years by ripping off its members.....Thomson's problem is that he was a weak link in a minority Government and his opponents tried to use that to destabilize the ALP.....The Union movement has hired some very questionable people to run its affairs over the years and one can only guess [highlight]that Thomson is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ripping off members.....I ag[ His Mentor there Michael Williamson is a real snake in the grass and is also up on charges.. /highlight]ree with Tony Abbott that unions should be bound by the same rules as any other business with full disclosure.....Thomson is a crook IMO and I have never supported him.....He should have resigned in disgrace years ago!!! >:( >:( >:(

the AWU should be next.... what wilson got away with is another disgrace..

Low turnout at fundraiser for Craig Thomson's legal bills
Updated Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:57am AEST

Craig Thomson (up close, good generic)
PHOTO: Craig Thomson says there is "money in the bank" to put towards his legal fees. (AAP: Lukas Coch)
RELATED STORY: Thomson tries to stop case being moved to higher courtRELATED STORY: Thomson case to be heard by magistrate
MAP: Sydney 2000


A fundraiser to help pay the legal bills of federal independent MP Craig Thomson attracted few supporters last night.

Having already raised $50,000 in the lead up to the event, Thomson had high hopes for the fundraiser, which was held in the celebrity lounge of the City Tattersalls Club in Sydney.

The venue had room for 200 guests, but fewer than 30 people attended.

Among them was supporter Peter Wicks, who said Thomson was "innocent until proven guilty".

Thomson's media advisor told the ABC that many people had donated prior to the event but were unable to attend.

Money raised will go towards the independent MP's mounting legal bills as he defends 173 fraud charges arising from allegations during his time as secretary of the Health Services Union.

He is accused of using his HSU credit card for prostitutes and hotels.

The former Labor MP has previously said he plans to contest the federal election as an independent for the NSW seat of Dobe

matty wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 12:00am:

Lobo wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 5:12pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :) He's pleading guilty to the charges.

He is??

"Embattled federal MP Craig Thomson has signalled for the first time he may be willing to make concessions over his alleged use of a union credit card to pay for porn and prostitutes, and his legal team has successfully argued for the case to be heard in a lower court."

:)

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:57pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:23pm: Why would anyone go to this fundraiser? Thommo is a sleaze, a crook and he ripped off HSU members...he should be put in jail for a very very long time. And anyone that supports him is just as bad as he is So, he's been convicted then? :-/ well he plans to not contest the charges so its kinda points to his guilt

More deliberate and blatant lies from melielongtime.  Put up the link which establishes that he is not contesting the charges.

Lobo wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:

matty wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 12:00am: Lobo wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 5:12pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :) He's pleading guilty to the charges. He is?? "Embattled federal MP Craig Thomson has signalled for the first time he may be willing to make concessions over his alleged use of a union credit card to pay for porn and prostitutes, and his legal team has successfully argued for the case to be heard in a lower court." :)

it is good to see you supporting labors criminals - people who take half a million dollars of union money and spend it on himself and hookers.  Its bad enough that labor has these people in its ranks; it is worse that dopes like you support him.

Alinta wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 10:01am:

matty wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 12:00am: Lobo wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 5:12pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :) He's pleading guilty to the charges. Not from what I've read...you have a link to substantiate your comment?????

Beat me to it.....

AGAIN, LOL....

;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

matty wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 12:00am: Lobo wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 5:12pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :) He's pleading guilty to the charges. Do you have a source for this new information?  Or did red baron tell you? "Mr Thomson has vowed to vigorously defend the allegations." http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/craig-thomson-now-faces-173-fraud-related-charges-over-health-services-union-credit-cards/story-fni0fee2-1226648158213 "He has repeatedly denied using Health Services Union credit cards to pay for escorts." "Despite some media reports, I am not making any admissions." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/thomson-may-not-dispute-credit-card-use/story-fndsip4d-1226681895845

Et tu, Greggery.....

;)

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:57pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:23pm: Why would anyone go to this fundraiser? Thommo is a sleaze, a crook and he ripped off HSU members...he should be put in jail for a very very long time. And anyone that supports him is just as bad as he is So, he's been convicted then? :-/ well he plans to not contest the charges so its kinda points to his guilt

Can just see that in a court of law....

"Your Honour, he kinda looks guilty, so we should sorta hang him till he's kinda dead...."

Good Grief!!!

:D

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 3:09pm: matty wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 12:00am: Lobo wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 5:12pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :) He's pleading guilty to the charges. He is?? "Embattled federal MP Craig Thomson has signalled for the first time he may be willing to make concessions over his alleged use of a union credit card to pay for porn and prostitutes, and his legal team has successfully argued for the case to be heard in a lower court." :) it is good to see you supporting labors criminals - people who take half a million dollars of union money and spend it on himself and hookers.  Its bad enough that labor has these people in its ranks; it is worse that dopes like you support him.

When was he convicted of taking union money and spending it on himself and hookers?

Did this happen yesterday?    :-/

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 3:09pm: matty wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 12:00am: Lobo wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 5:12pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :) He's pleading guilty to the charges. He is?? "Embattled federal MP Craig Thomson has signalled for the first time he may be willing to make concessions over his alleged use of a union credit card to pay for porn and prostitutes, and his legal team has successfully argued for the case to be heard in a lower court." :) it is good to see you supporting labors criminals - people who take half a million dollars of union money and spend it on himself and hookers.  Its bad enough that labor has these people in its ranks; it is worse that dopes like you support him.

NOT supporting anything but justice being allowed to run its course without outside interference.

"Dopes", eh??
Time to get yourself out of the 'Kiddie fiction' section.....

;)

Lobo wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 2:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:57pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:23pm: Why would anyone go to this fundraiser? Thommo is a sleaze, a crook and he ripped off HSU members...he should be put in jail for a very very long time. And anyone that supports him is just as bad as he is So, he's been convicted then? :-/ well he plans to not contest the charges so its kinda points to his guilt Can just see that in a court of law.... "Your Honour, he kinda looks guilty, so we should sorta hang him till he's kinda dead...." Good Grief!!! :D

well if it is true that the plans to not contest the charges that DOES indicate the truth of the matter. Incredibly, his defence is going to be that he was authorised to spend all that money without any controls.  he is going to argue that it was within union rules for him to spend money on hookers and to take cash advances of $100k etc...  Either way, he is effectively admitting that he DID spend money on hookers which if parliament were still sitting could have him chucked out for lying to the house.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 3:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 3:11pm: Lobo wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 3:09pm: matty wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 12:00am: Lobo wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 5:12pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :) He's pleading guilty to the charges. He is?? "Embattled federal MP Craig Thomson has signalled for the first time he may be willing to make concessions over his alleged use of a union credit card to pay for porn and prostitutes, and his legal team has successfully argued for the case to be heard in a lower court." :) it is good to see you supporting labors criminals - people who take half a million dollars of union money and spend it on himself and hookers.  Its bad enough that labor has these people in its ranks; it is worse that dopes like you support him. When was he convicted of taking union money and spending it on himself and hookers? Did this happen yesterday?    :-/

he was ARRESTED for the charges and has appeared in court more than once.  You can keep making the 'he's innocent' claim all you like, but you are not standing up for 'innocent until proven guilty', but rather standing up for a labor politician.

and maybe you can explain to me why a lot of people who are arrested are kept in prison BEFORE they are convicted. it's not just for community protection as most do not pose a threat.  so the legal system has no problem with jailing an unconvicted person.

Lobo wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 3:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 3:11pm: Lobo wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 3:09pm: matty wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 12:00am: Lobo wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 5:12pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :) He's pleading guilty to the charges. He is?? "Embattled federal MP Craig Thomson has signalled for the first time he may be willing to make concessions over his alleged use of a union credit card to pay for porn and prostitutes, and his legal team has successfully argued for the case to be heard in a lower court." :) it is good to see you supporting labors criminals - people who take half a million dollars of union money and spend it on himself and hookers.  Its bad enough that labor has these people in its ranks; it is worse that dopes like you support him. NOT supporting anything but justice being allowed to run its course without outside interference. "Dopes", eh?? Time to get yourself out of the 'Kiddie fiction' section..... ;)

and if you were actually defending the principle of justice, you'd have a point. but since you are merely defending a labor politician for no other reason than he is a labor politican, there is no principle of justice involved.

Quote:

and maybe you can explain to me why a lot of people who are arrested are kept in prison BEFORE they are convicted. it's not just for community protection as most do not pose a threat.  so the legal system has no problem with jailing an unconvicted person.

Oh, so now you misrepresent the principles concerning the granting of bail!

Is their no limit of the depths of deceit to which you will plunge, melielongtime?

Innocent until PROVEN guilty!!!

As opposed to....

Guilty 'because I say he is'; for political purposes...

:)

Aussie wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

Quote: and maybe you can explain to me why a lot of people who are arrested are kept in prison BEFORE they are convicted. it's not just for community protection as most do not pose a threat.  so the legal system has no problem with jailing an unconvicted person. Oh, so now you misrepresent the principles concerning the granting of bail! Is their no limit of the depths of deceit to which you will plunge, melielongtime?

then explain to me how a person kept in jail PRIOR to his trial is not in jail without a conviction?  Im not criticising the bail system; I am criticising the idiotic claims in a prior post.

Lobo wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 4:00pm:

Innocent until PROVEN guilty!!! As opposed to.... Guilty 'because I say he is'; for political purposes... :)

when I hear you say that about a Liberal charged with a serious crime, I will believe you.  For now, you are merely trotting out a principle that supports your bias and therefor is not a principle at all.

Quote:

I am criticising the idiotic claims in a prior post.

The only idiotic claims in prior posts are (a) Thomson is pleading guilty, (b) 'he's more or less admitted that he did do it,'  (c) and that Thomson is not contesting the charges.

Do you agree those are false claims?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 4:12pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 4:00pm: Innocent until PROVEN guilty!!! As opposed to.... Guilty 'because I say he is'; for political purposes... :) when I hear you say that about a Liberal charged with a serious crime, I will believe you.  For now, you are merely trotting out a principle that supports your bias and therefor is not a principle at all.

Whatever floats your boat.

I believe, contrary to what you would try to push as to my principles, that justice should be allowed to run its course WITHOUT any outside interference.

As for YOU believing ME???

Do you really think I give a rat's ar$e??

:D

Lobo wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:

matty wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 12:00am: Lobo wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 5:12pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :) He's pleading guilty to the charges. He is?? "Embattled federal MP Craig Thomson has signalled for the first time he may be willing to make concessions over his alleged use of a union credit card to pay for porn and prostitutes, and his legal team has successfully argued for the case to be heard in a lower court."

In his own words "I am not making any admissions"

The Judge's words: Mr Rozencwajg said he did not regard the case as a complex one, with or without a concession that Mr Thomson had used the credit cards as alleged.


Quote:

"Despite some media reports, I am not making any admissions. But there is a threshold issue of who had authority to use the credit card, which must be heard first. "This is an efficient use of court time and because of my limited personal resources, also an appropriate approach. "If the Crown cannot prove its case on this issue, all other charges become null and void." Mr Rozencwajg's decision to hear the case will mean a swifter conclusion and a lesser penalty if Mr Thomson is found guilty. Mr Rozencwajg said he did not regard the case as a complex one, with or without a concession that Mr Thomson had used the credit cards as alleged.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/thomson-may-not-dispute-credit-card-use/story-fndsip4d-1226681895845

Aussie wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 4:17pm:

Quote: I am criticising the idiotic claims in a prior post. The only idiotic claims in prior posts are (a) Thomson is pleading guilty, (b) 'he's more or less admitted that he did do it,'  (c) and that Thomson is not contesting the charges. Do you agree those are false claims?

Yes I do they are a obviously dishonest representation of the facts.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 4:17pm: Quote: I am criticising the idiotic claims in a prior post. The only idiotic claims in prior posts are (a) Thomson is pleading guilty, (b) 'he's more or less admitted that he did do it,'  (c) and that Thomson is not contesting the charges. Do you agree those are false claims? Yes I do they are a obviously dishonest representation of the facts.

I'm waiting for melielongtime to answer.  That'll be enlightening.

Aussie wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 5:31pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:24pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 4:17pm: Quote: I am criticising the idiotic claims in a prior post. The only idiotic claims in prior posts are (a) Thomson is pleading guilty, (b) 'he's more or less admitted that he did do it,'  (c) and that Thomson is not contesting the charges. Do you agree those are false claims? Yes I do they are a obviously dishonest representation of the facts. I'm waiting for melielongtime to answer.  That'll be enlightening.

Thomson unlikely to dispute facts of case
Date
July 19, 2013
Read later
Joel Cresswell
submit to redditEmail articlePrint

Ads by Google



Federal independent MP Craig Thomson is unlikely to dispute many of the facts of the fraud case against him, a court has heard.

Thomson is accused of misusing credit cards on items including X-rated movies and female escorts, while he was national secretary of the Health Services Union (HSU) and a Labor MP.

His lawyer Greg James QC said there was likely to be "very little" debate of the factual matters of the case.

"There's not much by way of factual dispute at the moment," he told the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Friday.

Advertisement
But Mr James said questions would be raised over his authority to use the cards.

Thomson said he was not admitting to the charges.

"I am not making any admissions. But there is a threshold issue of who had authority to use the credit card, which must be heard first," he said in a statement after the court hearing.

"If the Crown cannot prove its case on this issue, all other charges become null and void."

Aussie wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 4:17pm:

Quote: I am criticising the idiotic claims in a prior post. The only idiotic claims in prior posts are (a) Thomson is pleading guilty, (b) 'he's more or less admitted that he did do it,'  (c) and that Thomson is not contesting the charges. Do you agree those are false claims?

I read them in an article.  Their truth or not is not something any of us can really know until he actually makes his pleas.  But the substance of the article was that he was going to stipulate to the facts and the charges but say that he was legally entitled to do what he did.  Im not sure what is more reprehensible: that he stole the money or that it might possible be legal for him to do so under union rules.

either way, stipulating to the facts does essentially mean that he admits what he is charged with is true.

Lobo wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 4:12pm: Lobo wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 4:00pm: Innocent until PROVEN guilty!!! As opposed to.... Guilty 'because I say he is'; for political purposes... :) when I hear you say that about a Liberal charged with a serious crime, I will believe you.  For now, you are merely trotting out a principle that supports your bias and therefor is not a principle at all. Whatever floats your boat. I believe, contrary to what you would try to push as to my principles, that justice should be allowed to run its course WITHOUT any outside interference. As for YOU believing ME??? Do you really think I give a rat's ar$e?? :D

I would not be using the Thomson case to make you point on that.  The years and investigations that took place without criminal or civil actions do not make justice look good.

We do know his plea to the charges.  'Not Guilty.'


Quote:

The only idiotic claims in prior posts are (a) Thomson is pleading guilty, (b) 'he's more or less admitted that he did do it,'  (c) and that Thomson is not contesting the charges. Do you agree those are false claims?

Simple question ~~ answer it.

cods wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 5:55pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:31pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:24pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 4:17pm: Quote: I am criticising the idiotic claims in a prior post. The only idiotic claims in prior posts are (a) Thomson is pleading guilty, (b) 'he's more or less admitted that he did do it,'  (c) and that Thomson is not contesting the charges. Do you agree those are false claims? Yes I do they are a obviously dishonest representation of the facts. I'm waiting for melielongtime to answer.  That'll be enlightening. Thomson unlikely to dispute facts of case Date July 19, 2013 Read later Joel Cresswell submit to redditEmail articlePrint Ads by Google Federal independent MP Craig Thomson is unlikely to dispute many of the facts of the fraud case against him, a court has heard. Thomson is accused of misusing credit cards on items including X-rated movies and female escorts, while he was national secretary of the Health Services Union (HSU) and a Labor MP. His lawyer Greg James QC said there was likely to be "very little" debate of the factual matters of the case. "There's not much by way of factual dispute at the moment," he told the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Friday. Advertisement But Mr James said questions would be raised over his authority to use the cards. Thomson said he was not admitting to the charges. "I am not making any admissions. But there is a threshold issue of who had authority to use the credit card, which must be heard first," he said in a statement after the court hearing. "If the Crown cannot prove its case on this issue, all other charges become null and void."

interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them.

Quote:

interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them.

None of us know what facts the QC was referring to.  You have stupidly leapt to the conclusion that every thing adverse to Thomson which you've read in an 'article' has been agreed to, when in fact, you have no idea what has been (to use your TV Americanism) 'stipulated.'

Aussie wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Quote: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. None of us know what facts the QC was referring to.  You have stupidly leapt to the conclusion that every thing adverse to Thomson which you've read in an 'article' has been agreed to, when in fact, you have no idea what has been (to use your TV Americanism) 'stipulated.'

but you do of course.. ::)

THOMO says he is still going to run as an independent he is still convinced he has done nothing wrong... hasnt he spent quite a bit of time trying to blame others????..yeah I think he even did that in Parliament.

now they are not even going near some of the charges..so if he had a $5 coffee he will admit that.... on top of that he is begging for money.... can anyone do that?? or only pollies?

I am a bit over this guy he should do the decent thing and plead guilty.. and stop this act.. I get the feeling he thinks he is entitled to preferential treatment.



if he doesnt go to court before the election can he still run as a candidate?

Aussie wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Quote: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. None of us know what facts the QC was referring to.  You have stupidly leapt to the conclusion that every thing adverse to Thomson which you've read in an 'article' has been agreed to, when in fact, you have no idea what has been (to use your TV Americanism) 'stipulated.'

nor do you.  lawyer or not, you have no more knowledge of the facts than I do.  All any of us have is these reports from which it is more than fair to conclude that Thomson does not plan in denying many if any of the facts but rather constructing a defence against them.  And I don't care if 'stipulate' is a legal term here or not. In this non-legal forum it still means precisely what he is saying (or reported as saying).

Aussie wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Quote: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. None of us know what facts the QC was referring to.  You have stupidly leapt to the conclusion that every thing adverse to Thomson which you've read in an 'article' has been agreed to, when in fact, you have no idea what has been (to use your TV Americanism) 'stipulated.'

Exactly........though I'd be inclined to think the reference would be the fact of the credit card expenditure subject of the allegations per se would not be in dispute.

cods wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:25pm: Quote: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. None of us know what facts the QC was referring to.  You have stupidly leapt to the conclusion that every thing adverse to Thomson which you've read in an 'article' has been agreed to, when in fact, you have no idea what has been (to use your TV Americanism) 'stipulated.' but you do of course.. ::) THOMO says he is still going to run as an independent he is still convinced he has done nothing wrong... hasnt he spent quite a bit of time trying to blame others????..yeah I think he even did that in Parliament. now they are not even going near some of the charges..so if he had a $5 coffee he will admit that.... on top of that he is begging for money.... can anyone do that?? or only pollies? I am a bit over this guy he should do the decent thing and plead guilty.. and stop this act.. I get the feeling he thinks he is entitled to preferential treatment. if he doesnt go to court before the election can he still run as a candidate?

Im unsure about the constitutional argument re criminal convictions.  I do know that if you are convicted while in office you are kicked out.  but I am not sure if a person can be and MP with a criminal record from the past.

Does anyone know this for sure other than opinion?

Alinta wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:25pm: Quote: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. None of us know what facts the QC was referring to.  You have stupidly leapt to the conclusion that every thing adverse to Thomson which you've read in an 'article' has been agreed to, when in fact, you have no idea what has been (to use your TV Americanism) 'stipulated.' Exactly........though I'd be inclined to think the reference would be the fact of the credit card expenditure subject of the allegations per se would not be in dispute.

but he has denied using the card for much of the time.  his credibility is in shreds as it is.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 6:50pm:

Alinta wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:47pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:25pm: Quote: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. None of us know what facts the QC was referring to.  You have stupidly leapt to the conclusion that every thing adverse to Thomson which you've read in an 'article' has been agreed to, when in fact, you have no idea what has been (to use your TV Americanism) 'stipulated.' Exactly........though I'd be inclined to think the reference would be the fact of the credit card expenditure subject of the allegations per se would not be in dispute. but he has denied using the card for much of the time.  his credibility is in shreds as it is.

yes.......and he may well continue to do so depending on how the "authority" issue unfolds. 

Alinta wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:25pm: Quote: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. None of us know what facts the QC was referring to.  You have stupidly leapt to the conclusion that every thing adverse to Thomson which you've read in an 'article' has been agreed to, when in fact, you have no idea what has been (to use your TV Americanism) 'stipulated.' Exactly........though I'd be inclined to think the reference would be the fact of the credit card expenditure subject of the allegations per se would not be in dispute.

No point speculating.  Fact is, we do not know, and we will not know until the Trial begins.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:25pm: Quote: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. None of us know what facts the QC was referring to.  You have stupidly leapt to the conclusion that every thing adverse to Thomson which you've read in an 'article' has been agreed to, when in fact, you have no idea what has been (to use your TV Americanism) 'stipulated.' nor do you.  lawyer or not, you have no more knowledge of the facts than I do.  All any of us have is these reports from which it is more than fair to conclude that Thomson does not plan in denying many if any of the facts but rather constructing a defence against them.  And I don't care if 'stipulate' is a legal term here or not. In this non-legal forum it still means precisely what he is saying (or reported as saying).

Then why are you getting so bombastic?
Why are you trying to hang the man out to dry??
Why are you giving the impression that you think the man is as guilty as sin???
Why is everyone who disagrees with you a 'dope', or worse??

:D :D

Aussie wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 7:09pm:

Alinta wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:47pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:25pm: Quote: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. None of us know what facts the QC was referring to.  You have stupidly leapt to the conclusion that every thing adverse to Thomson which you've read in an 'article' has been agreed to, when in fact, you have no idea what has been (to use your TV Americanism) 'stipulated.' Exactly........though I'd be inclined to think the reference would be the fact of the credit card expenditure subject of the allegations per se would not be in dispute. No point speculating.  Fact is, we do not know, and we will not know until the Trial begins.

Yep........hopefully I can squeeze into what I expect will be a tightly packed courtroom....

Quote:

Yep........hopefully I can squeeze into what I expect will be a tightly packed courtroom....

Let's hope you can.  You can report directly on the Trial!

Great!

Alinta wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 7:09pm: Alinta wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:47pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:25pm: Quote: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. None of us know what facts the QC was referring to.  You have stupidly leapt to the conclusion that every thing adverse to Thomson which you've read in an 'article' has been agreed to, when in fact, you have no idea what has been (to use your TV Americanism) 'stipulated.' Exactly........though I'd be inclined to think the reference would be the fact of the credit card expenditure subject of the allegations per se would not be in dispute. No point speculating.  Fact is, we do not know, and we will not know until the Trial begins. Yep........hopefully I can squeeze into what I expect will be a tightly packed courtroom....

Hope you give us 'all the goss' here first....

:)

Commonwealth Crime Act Section 12.  If it's a "Serious Coomnwealth Offense" or Serious State Offence that has a Federal aspect"  then a person can be disqualified from holding office.

Section 15 (subsection 2 ) includes theft:


Quote:

Meaning of serious State offence that has a federal aspect (4)  For the purposes of this Part, serious State offence that has a federal aspect means a State offence that has a federal aspect and that would be a serious Commonwealth offence if it were a Commonwealth offence.

and;


Quote:

Meaning of serious Commonwealth offence (1)  For the purposes of this Part, serious Commonwealth offence means a Commonwealth offence that: (a)  involves a matter mentioned in subsection (2); and (b)  is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a period of 3 years or more.

Of course if found guilty (which seems unlikely given the facts) he would most likely be asked to resign or would not be considered for the seat.

muso wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 7:43pm:

Commonwealth Crime Act Section 12.  If it's a "Serious Coomnwealth Offense" or Serious State Offence that has a Federal aspect"  then a person can be disqualified from holding office. Section 15 (subsection 2 ) includes theft: Quote: Meaning of serious State offence that has a federal aspect (4)  For the purposes of this Part, serious State offence that has a federal aspect means a State offence that has a federal aspect and that would be a serious Commonwealth offence if it were a Commonwealth offence. and; [quote]Meaning of serious Commonwealth offence (1)  For the purposes of this Part, serious Commonwealth offence means a Commonwealth offence that: (a)  involves a matter mentioned in subsection (2); and (b)  is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a period of 3 years or more.

Of course if found guilty (which seems unlikely given the facts) he would most likely be asked to resign or would not be considered for the seat. [/quote]

Do you know, Muso, if someone convicted, say, 10 years ago, of a crime carrying this penalty would be eligible to be elected today?

Or is the ban permanent?

:)

Lobo wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 7:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:47pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:25pm: Quote: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. None of us know what facts the QC was referring to.  You have stupidly leapt to the conclusion that every thing adverse to Thomson which you've read in an 'article' has been agreed to, when in fact, you have no idea what has been (to use your TV Americanism) 'stipulated.' nor do you.  lawyer or not, you have no more knowledge of the facts than I do.  All any of us have is these reports from which it is more than fair to conclude that Thomson does not plan in denying many if any of the facts but rather constructing a defence against them.  And I don't care if 'stipulate' is a legal term here or not. In this non-legal forum it still means precisely what he is saying (or reported as saying). Then why are you getting so bombastic? because he's an idiot (longy, not Thomo) Why are you trying to hang the man out to dry??because he's an idiot (longy, not Thomo) Why are you giving the impression that you think the man is as guilty as sin???because he's an idiot (longy, not Thomo) Why is everyone who disagrees with you a 'dope', or worse??because he's an idiot (longy, not Thomo) :D :D

I hope I cleared that up for you

John Smith wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 8:30pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 7:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:47pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:25pm: Quote: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. None of us know what facts the QC was referring to.  You have stupidly leapt to the conclusion that every thing adverse to Thomson which you've read in an 'article' has been agreed to, when in fact, you have no idea what has been (to use your TV Americanism) 'stipulated.' nor do you.  lawyer or not, you have no more knowledge of the facts than I do.  All any of us have is these reports from which it is more than fair to conclude that Thomson does not plan in denying many if any of the facts but rather constructing a defence against them.  And I don't care if 'stipulate' is a legal term here or not. In this non-legal forum it still means precisely what he is saying (or reported as saying). Then why are you getting so bombastic? because he's an idiot (longy, not Thomo) Why are you trying to hang the man out to dry??because he's an idiot (longy, not Thomo) Why are you giving the impression that you think the man is as guilty as sin???because he's an idiot (longy, not Thomo) Why is everyone who disagrees with you a 'dope', or worse??because he's an idiot (longy, not Thomo) :D :D I hope I cleared that up for you

;D ;D ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

cods wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:55pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:31pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:24pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 4:17pm: Quote: I am criticising the idiotic claims in a prior post. The only idiotic claims in prior posts are (a) Thomson is pleading guilty, (b) 'he's more or less admitted that he did do it,'  (c) and that Thomson is not contesting the charges. Do you agree those are false claims? Yes I do they are a obviously dishonest representation of the facts. I'm waiting for melielongtime to answer.  That'll be enlightening. Thomson unlikely to dispute facts of case Date July 19, 2013 Read later Joel Cresswell submit to redditEmail articlePrint Ads by Google Federal independent MP Craig Thomson is unlikely to dispute many of the facts of the fraud case against him, a court has heard. Thomson is accused of misusing credit cards on items including X-rated movies and female escorts, while he was national secretary of the Health Services Union (HSU) and a Labor MP. His lawyer Greg James QC said there was likely to be "very little" debate of the factual matters of the case. "There's not much by way of factual dispute at the moment," he told the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Friday. Advertisement But Mr James said questions would be raised over his authority to use the cards. Thomson said he was not admitting to the charges. "I am not making any admissions. But there is a threshold issue of who had authority to use the credit card, which must be heard first," he said in a statement after the court hearing. "If the Crown cannot prove its case on this issue, all other charges become null and void." interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them.

Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute

No he said that they didn't intend to dispute the facts at the moment.

They have specifically stated that it does not mean that they do not dispute the other claims just that if he was entitled to use the card then the other claims are irrelevant.

I don't see him winning the point but the likely results do not make it OK for people to be telling lies about what has been said.

With the level of your comprehension skills I have to wonder if English is your first language?

Lobo wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 8:19pm:

Do you know, Muso, if someone convicted, say, 10 years ago, of a crime carrying this penalty would be eligible to be elected today? Or is the ban permanent? :)

If there was a conviction, then it would still apply.

I doubt if these proceedings will result in a prosecution, however I also doubt if he will be given a chance to stand for parliament. 

the left would support thommo for his vote

muso wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 10:42pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 8:19pm: Do you know, Muso, if someone convicted, say, 10 years ago, of a crime carrying this penalty would be eligible to be elected today? Or is the ban permanent? :) If there was a conviction, then it would still apply. I doubt if these proceedings will result in a prosecution, however I also doubt if he will be given a chance to stand for parliament.

muso

As far as I understand the guy is bankrupt, he needs to act or be really embarrassed as his legal bill will start mounting.

To win a election in what would be a marginal seat you need a credible candidate (he is far from that now) and you need a few 100k to campaign (he definitely does not have that) the guy is finished as far as I can tell unless some bleeding heart sugar daddy wants to rescue this grub.

Regardless of any criminal convictions which is more about evidence, the guys defence is a sergeant Schultz defence which no one believes. It is likely that he was set up but that suggests he was incompetent at his job.

For the HSU members I think they need this guy to be convicted, having more than a 100K cash being rorted through his credit card without reporting it to the police suggests he knew about it ..... that to be is clear evidence of fraud which he must of known about ..... it was his credit card with his name on it. All a corporate card means is the company is also responsible for the card.

The whole idea of a corporate credit card (which I have one for my own company) is all about transparency..... mine is actually blocked from taking cash out of.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 11:59pm:

the left would support thommo for his vote

Just as the right organised this whole episode specifically to prevent his vote. It has never been about if he has done anything wrong or not at any level.

The same way that the Liberals covered up for slipper for over a decade even when they didn't even need his vote.

Making it Left v Right is a tad absurd DNA given your stance on this issue (and many others) seems to be based upon your dislike of the Liberal party?

the fact that this man has been under a cloud more or less as long as he has been an MP...I think makes this case different from most.

what he is accused of isnt related to his being in govt.. it was his Unions Job prior to his selection to run for the labor party..

in other words he had priors....

slipper yes not a nice piece of work I admit.. but the charges were regarding his Parliamentary ethics..and from what I know he repaid the amounts he was accused of taking..

THOMO has neither admitted or offered to repay anything..he claims he has done nothing wrong....

now I dont care if he paid for a haircut on the credit card.. he would know that is not its intention...he has by the look of this used this card over and over again for personal benefit.as if it was his own bank account..

now is he thoughtless.. or an idiot.. or just a plain old fashioned thief????

on top of that he is doin g his best to prove it was someone else that used it.. even though it had his name on it and it was his responsibility..loathsome.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 8:38am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 11:59pm: the left would support thommo for his vote Just as the right organised this whole episode specifically to prevent his vote. It has never been about if he has done anything wrong or not at any level. The same way that the Liberals covered up for slipper for over a decade even when they didn't even need his vote.

I cant remember it being covered up.. slipper always was well known for dipping..

but didnt he have to pay it back???...

so you cant really compare the two of them I dont think.. many in parliament have had to return funds they claimed...

the thing with slipper it happened too often..lol

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 8:44am:

Making it Left v Right is a tad absurd DNA given your stance on this issue (and many others) seems to be based upon your dislike of the Liberal party?

Are you saying that it is silly for me to post a balanced opinion which happens to be true because I don't like or more specifically trust the Liberals ????

RightSadFred wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 7:53am:

muso As far as I understand the guy is bankrupt, he needs to act or be really embarrassed as his legal bill will start mounting. To win a election in what would be a marginal seat you need a credible candidate (he is far from that now) and you need a few 100k to campaign (he definitely does not have that) the guy is finished as far as I can tell unless some bleeding heart sugar daddy wants to rescue this grub. Regardless of any criminal convictions which is more about evidence, the guys defence is a sergeant Schultz defence which no one believes. It is likely that he was set up but that suggests he was incompetent at his job. For the HSU members I think they need this guy to be convicted, having more than a 100K cash being rorted through his credit card without reporting it to the police suggests he knew about it ..... that to be is clear evidence of fraud which he must of known about ..... it was his credit card with his name on it. All a corporate card means is the company is also responsible for the card. The whole idea of a corporate credit card (which I have one for my own company) is all about transparency..... mine is actually blocked from taking cash out of.

First, there is no doubt in my mind that he's finished and lost all credibility.

As for as corporate cards are concerned, it depends on the company. I have a corporate card today which is very tightly controlled. However, in a previous role back in the 90s, I had a company Amex that could be used for "entertainment". The guidelines stated that you could buy drinks "within reason", so the lines between personal use and company use were blurred. I used to travel overseas a lot and my schedule was quite hectic, so much so that I had two passports (that was an enormous rigmarole to organise), because at any given time,  one passport was tied up with visa applications for a future trip. My manager told me that if I was held up in Paris for a few days, it was quite reasonable to put a few things like car hire, boat hire etc on the card, and he was the one who authorised it every month without a single complaint. Of course I never had the gall to use it for the Lido or worse :) although some did.

So if Thommo was responsible for authorising his own card, I doubt very much if he'll be faced with any charges whatsoever.

cods wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

the fact that this man has been under a cloud more or less as long as he has been an MP...I think makes this case different from most. what he is accused of isnt related to his being in govt.. it was his Unions Job prior to his selection to run for the labor party.. in other words he had priors.... slipper yes not a nice piece of work I admit.. but the charges were regarding his Parliamentary ethics..and from what I know he repaid the amounts he was accused of taking.. THOMO has neither admitted or offered to repay anything..he claims he has done nothing wrong.... now I dont care if he paid for a haircut on the credit card.. he would know that is not its intention...he has by the look of this used this card over and over again for personal benefit.as if it was his own bank account.. now is he thoughtless.. or an idiot.. or just a plain old fashioned thief???? on top of that he is doin g his best to prove it was someone else that used it.. even though it had his name on it and it was his responsibility..loathsome.

even though it had his name on it and it was his responsibility

I rather think that the fact that his name impression on the slip used on the released documents was spelt wrong lends some credibility to the assertion of some type of fraud with the card may have occurred?

slipper yes not a nice piece of work I admit.. but the charges were regarding his Parliamentary ethics..and from what I know he repaid the amounts he was accused of taking.

No I was talking about a previous sexual abuse allegation that the Liberals had known about, covered up then went on to preselect him for a further 3 terms.


Quote:

In the documents, former Peter Slipper adviser James Ashby said officials in the Howard's government knew as far back as 2003 that Mr Slipper, then a Liberal,” had formed a relationship of a sexual nature with a younger male member of staff" employed in his office. The documents allege that Tony Nutt, a senior adviser to Mr Howard, was told of the allegations "in or around mid-2003". The claim says a former Slipper staffer, Megan Hobson, had seen a video in which Mr Slipper "was observed to": • enter the bedroom of a junior staff member through the window"; • lie on a bed with the junior male staff member in shorts and T-shirt and hug the junior male staff member in an intimate fashion" and • urinate out of the window of the room." The documents allege that Mr Nutt then told Ms Hobson to "forget all about it". "The Commonwealth thereafter failed to take reasonable and effective steps to prevent the Second Respondent (Mr Slipper) from utilising his office to foster sexual relationships with young male staff members," the claim alleges. Around the time of the May budget week in 2003, the junior males staffer complained to Ms Hobson that he had been "abused by Peter''.

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 9:18am:

RightSadFred wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 7:53am: muso As far as I understand the guy is bankrupt, he needs to act or be really embarrassed as his legal bill will start mounting. To win a election in what would be a marginal seat you need a credible candidate (he is far from that now) and you need a few 100k to campaign (he definitely does not have that) the guy is finished as far as I can tell unless some bleeding heart sugar daddy wants to rescue this grub. Regardless of any criminal convictions which is more about evidence, the guys defence is a sergeant Schultz defence which no one believes. It is likely that he was set up but that suggests he was incompetent at his job. For the HSU members I think they need this guy to be convicted, having more than a 100K cash being rorted through his credit card without reporting it to the police suggests he knew about it ..... that to be is clear evidence of fraud which he must of known about ..... it was his credit card with his name on it. All a corporate card means is the company is also responsible for the card. The whole idea of a corporate credit card (which I have one for my own company) is all about transparency..... mine is actually blocked from taking cash out of. First, there is no doubt in my mind that he's finished and lost all credibility. As for as corporate cards are concerned, it depends on the company. I have a corporate card today which is very tightly controlled. However, in a previous role back in the 90s, I had a company Amex that could be used for "entertainment". The guidelines stated that you could buy drinks "within reason", so the lines between personal use and company use were blurred. I used to travel overseas a lot and my schedule was quite hectic, so much so that I had two passports (that was an enormous rigmarole to organise), because at any given time,  one passport was tied up with visa applications for a future trip. My manager told me that if I was held up in Paris for a few days, it was quite reasonable to put a few things like car hire, boat hire etc on the card, and he was the one who authorised it every month without a single complaint. Of course I never had the gall to use it for the Lido or worse :) although some did. So if Thommo was responsible for authorising his own card, I doubt very much if he'll be faced with any charges whatsoever.

As an example I pay for the department Xmas night out with mine, I would get a wrap over the knuckles if it goes over $10,000 and they may take a bit out of my budget is the threat.

Muso that's a really good point about corporate card expensing.

The problem for me lies in the structuring and attitude that exists in Unions and Public Sectors.

I work for a listed entity which has specific, stringent ethical policies and expensing systems.
I have a Corp Amex card which I use very often, mainly to refill my car and pay for flights, hotels etc.
We use the Concur system of reporting - this is linked to the card itself and must be filled out every month. If a red alarm vendor appears it requires a specific and detailed reason as to why it has been used - a strip club or brothel being prime examples.

Now I interviewed a guy back in May for a Controller role, he was coming out of a Union.
He told me that the biggest headache for him is poor control of corporate expensing.
He said they have the ability to withdraw cash on the card (the biggest no no in expense auditing given its impossible to trace how its spent) and that he has often veterans of 15 and 20 years in the Union telling him its none of his business how they spend money on their card.
His union has a write off of $450,000 for unallocated expenses on their balance sheet.

I can't imagine his union operates much different to the others.

There is no way we as a listed entity with clear ethical guidelines could operate in that way.

Until the Unions and the public sectors change their mindset of entitlement and by that nature changes its internal expensing audit systems, they will continue to attract and produce unethical corrupt people such as Mr Thomson.

.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 10:12am:

Muso that's a really good point about corporate card expensing. The problem for me lies in the structuring and attitude that exists in Unions and Public Sectors. I work for a listed entity which has specific, stringent ethical policies and expensing systems. I have a Corp Amex card which I use very often, mainly to refill my car and pay for flights, hotels etc. We use the Concur system of reporting - this is linked to the card itself and must be filled out every month. If a red alarm vendor appears it requires a specific and detailed reason as to why it has been used - a strip club or brothel being prime examples. Now I interviewed a guy back in May for a Controller role, he was coming out of a Union. He told me that the biggest headache for him is poor control of corporate expensing. He said they have the ability to withdraw cash on the card (the biggest no no in expense auditing given its impossible to trace how its spent) and that he has often veterans of 15 and 20 years in the Union telling him its none of his business how they spend money on their card. His union has a write off of $450,000 for unallocated expenses on their balance sheet. I can't imagine his union operates much different to the others. There is no way we as a listed entity with clear ethical guidelines could operate in that way. Until the Unions and the public sectors change their mindset of entitlement and by that nature changes its internal expensing audit systems, they will continue to attract and produce unethical corrupt people such as Mr Thomson.

It has been a long time since I was in the public sector but when I was there was no way you could get cash on a card and the financial control on spending was more than twice as tough as anything I have found in the private sector where abuse is rife and in a lot of areas expected with a wink.

What you said about Unions and corporate expenses doesn't surprise me in the least. The question is - how many other ex Union executives could be hauled over the coals for what they considered perks of the job?

Part of the problem lies with the Union culture itself, although using a Corporate Credit Card to pay for a hooker is indefensible and any normal person should know that it's wrong.

That said, I'd be very surprised if this resulted in any criminal charges.   

The attitude is 90% of it.

Change management is the most difficult area of HRM as we are told when we are studying.

I have experienced how hard that is.

Seriously simple things like reorganizing the office spaces - think "How come I don't get a window desk when I have been here longer?" Etc - can cause grief to changing IT systems etc.

When you add in a policy change to removing a "perk" that they've always got away with then it requires huge corporate and high level support.

My issue is that they've hung Thomson out to dry - and the guy is clearly a grub - but not actually addressing any of the fundamental issues in their institutionalized expense routing of members money.

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 10:33am:

What you said about Unions and corporate expenses doesn't surprise me in the least. The question is - how many other ex Union executives could be hauled over the coals for what they considered perks of the job? Part of the problem lies with the Union culture itself, although using a Corporate Credit Card to pay for a hooker is indefensible and any normal person should know that it's wrong. That said, I'd be very surprised if this resulted in any criminal charges.

We see a lot of pointing at unions and it is clearly wrong but any time you see a group of business people walk into a brothel do not make the mistake of thinking that they wont be using a corporate card.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 10:40am:

The attitude is 90% of it. Change management is the most difficult area of HRM as we are told when we are studying. I have experienced how hard that is. Seriously simple things like reorganizing the office spaces - think "How come I don't get a window desk when I have been here longer?" Etc - can cause grief to changing IT systems etc. When you add in a policy change to removing a "perk" that they've always got away with then it requires huge corporate and high level support. My issue is that they've hung Thomson out to dry - and the guy is clearly a grub - but not actually addressing any of the fundamental issues in their institutionalized expense routing of members money.

If he is guilty which looks likely then I suspect that union management are not doing much more than emulating the business community.

I have found that removing unjustifiable perks to be every easy as long as it isn't at the management level.

I find that employees understand when they can not justify something but management believe they have the right to expect the unjustifiable.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 10:45am:

muso wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 10:33am: What you said about Unions and corporate expenses doesn't surprise me in the least. The question is - how many other ex Union executives could be hauled over the coals for what they considered perks of the job? Part of the problem lies with the Union culture itself, although using a Corporate Credit Card to pay for a hooker is indefensible and any normal person should know that it's wrong. That said, I'd be very surprised if this resulted in any criminal charges.    We see a lot of pointing at unions and it is clearly wrong but any time you see a group of business people walk into a brothel do not make the mistake of thinking that they wont be using a corporate card.

Standards vary, but that may be the case in some smaller businesses today. It doesn't change the fact that it's obviously wrong.

This is also very very unlikely to be the case with a listed entity.

If I spent money on a hooker on the Amex I would be dismissed immediately.
And rightfully so.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 10:55am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 10:40am: The attitude is 90% of it. Change management is the most difficult area of HRM as we are told when we are studying. I have experienced how hard that is. Seriously simple things like reorganizing the office spaces - think "How come I don't get a window desk when I have been here longer?" Etc - can cause grief to changing IT systems etc. When you add in a policy change to removing a "perk" that they've always got away with then it requires huge corporate and high level support. My issue is that they've hung Thomson out to dry - and the guy is clearly a grub - but not actually addressing any of the fundamental issues in their institutionalized expense routing of members money. If he is guilty which looks likely then I suspect that union management are not doing much more than emulating the business community. I have found that removing unjustifiable perks to be every easy as long as it isn't at the management level. I find that employees understand when they can not justify something but management believe they have the right to expect the unjustifiable.

thats what I mean about the FBT dna.. what about COMCAR.. they talked about it this morning but no mentioned comcar..why should not pollies be covered by it as well??????.

management like polllies always have had special contracts...it goes with the job, thats if you want people that can do the job..

pollies..??? very questionable.. ;D ;D

in most managerial positions if they stuff up and cost the company BILLIONS they get sacked there and then.. bang your gone.. unlike pollies who can hang on until some dill calls an election.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:

This is also very very unlikely to be the case with a listed entity. If I spent money on a hooker on the Amex I would be dismissed immediately. And rightfully so.

likewise if you cost the company BILLIONs in waste you would also go


and rightfully so!

cods wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 12:25pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 10:55am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 10:40am: The attitude is 90% of it. Change management is the most difficult area of HRM as we are told when we are studying. I have experienced how hard that is. Seriously simple things like reorganizing the office spaces - think "How come I don't get a window desk when I have been here longer?" Etc - can cause grief to changing IT systems etc. When you add in a policy change to removing a "perk" that they've always got away with then it requires huge corporate and high level support. My issue is that they've hung Thomson out to dry - and the guy is clearly a grub - but not actually addressing any of the fundamental issues in their institutionalized expense routing of members money. If he is guilty which looks likely then I suspect that union management are not doing much more than emulating the business community. I have found that removing unjustifiable perks to be every easy as long as it isn't at the management level. I find that employees understand when they can not justify something but management believe they have the right to expect the unjustifiable. thats what I mean about the FBT dna.. what about COMCAR.. they talked about it this morning but no mentioned comcar..why should not pollies be covered by it as well??????. management like polllies always have had special contracts...it goes with the job, thats if you want people that can do the job.. pollies..??? very questionable.. ;D ;D in most managerial positions if they stuff up and cost the company BILLIONS they get sacked there and then.. bang your gone.. unlike pollies who can hang on until some dill calls an election.

in most managerial positions if they stuff up and cost the company BILLIONS they get sacked

You would be surprised by just how rare that is, mostly they just blame someone else and then restructure to pretend it will fix the problem. They get away with it 90% of the time. Often they then base the bonus on how much of a success it really was.

You can do anything with a well timed we thought out restructure.

I've removed 3 sh1t employees over my career with a restructure.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 10:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:20pm: cods wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:55pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:31pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:24pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 4:17pm: Quote: I am criticising the idiotic claims in a prior post. The only idiotic claims in prior posts are (a) Thomson is pleading guilty, (b) 'he's more or less admitted that he did do it,'  (c) and that Thomson is not contesting the charges. Do you agree those are false claims? Yes I do they are a obviously dishonest representation of the facts. I'm waiting for melielongtime to answer.  That'll be enlightening. Thomson unlikely to dispute facts of case Date July 19, 2013 Read later Joel Cresswell submit to redditEmail articlePrint Ads by Google Federal independent MP Craig Thomson is unlikely to dispute many of the facts of the fraud case against him, a court has heard. Thomson is accused of misusing credit cards on items including X-rated movies and female escorts, while he was national secretary of the Health Services Union (HSU) and a Labor MP. His lawyer Greg James QC said there was likely to be "very little" debate of the factual matters of the case. "There's not much by way of factual dispute at the moment," he told the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Friday. Advertisement But Mr James said questions would be raised over his authority to use the cards. Thomson said he was not admitting to the charges. "I am not making any admissions. But there is a threshold issue of who had authority to use the credit card, which must be heard first," he said in a statement after the court hearing. "If the Crown cannot prove its case on this issue, all other charges become null and void." interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute No he said that they didn't intend to dispute the facts at the moment. They have specifically stated that it does not mean that they do not dispute the other claims just that if he was entitled to use the card then the other claims are irrelevant. I don't see him winning the point but the likely results do not make it OK for people to be telling lies about what has been said. With the level of your comprehension skills I have to wonder if English is your first language?

I wouldn't discuss comprehension if I were you.  His lawyer said that they were unlikely to dispute the facts of the case. How is then incorrect to ssy - as I said - 'ven his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.'

the statements are semanticly identical.

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 9:18am:

RightSadFred wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 7:53am: muso As far as I understand the guy is bankrupt, he needs to act or be really embarrassed as his legal bill will start mounting. To win a election in what would be a marginal seat you need a credible candidate (he is far from that now) and you need a few 100k to campaign (he definitely does not have that) the guy is finished as far as I can tell unless some bleeding heart sugar daddy wants to rescue this grub. Regardless of any criminal convictions which is more about evidence, the guys defence is a sergeant Schultz defence which no one believes. It is likely that he was set up but that suggests he was incompetent at his job. For the HSU members I think they need this guy to be convicted, having more than a 100K cash being rorted through his credit card without reporting it to the police suggests he knew about it ..... that to be is clear evidence of fraud which he must of known about ..... it was his credit card with his name on it. All a corporate card means is the company is also responsible for the card. The whole idea of a corporate credit card (which I have one for my own company) is all about transparency..... mine is actually blocked from taking cash out of. First, there is no doubt in my mind that he's finished and lost all credibility. As for as corporate cards are concerned, it depends on the company. I have a corporate card today which is very tightly controlled. However, in a previous role back in the 90s, I had a company Amex that could be used for "entertainment". The guidelines stated that you could buy drinks "within reason", so the lines between personal use and company use were blurred. I used to travel overseas a lot and my schedule was quite hectic, so much so that I had two passports (that was an enormous rigmarole to organise), because at any given time,  one passport was tied up with visa applications for a future trip. My manager told me that if I was held up in Paris for a few days, it was quite reasonable to put a few things like car hire, boat hire etc on the card, and he was the one who authorised it every month without a single complaint. Of course I never had the gall to use it for the Lido or worse :) although some did. So if Thommo was responsible for authorising his own card, I doubt very much if he'll be faced with any charges whatsoever.

he is already facing 174 criminal charges.  Authorising his own credit card expenses does not therefore entitle him to make up the rules as he goes along. Sure, as you mentioned, reasonable semi-personal expenses are at times authorised by some companies but it is always in the spirit of keeping it small and keeping it at least semi-defendable.  How do you defend thousands on hookers or $100,000+ in cash??

Dnarever wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 10:45am:

muso wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 10:33am: What you said about Unions and corporate expenses doesn't surprise me in the least. The question is - how many other ex Union executives could be hauled over the coals for what they considered perks of the job? Part of the problem lies with the Union culture itself, although using a Corporate Credit Card to pay for a hooker is indefensible and any normal person should know that it's wrong. That said, I'd be very surprised if this resulted in any criminal charges.    We see a lot of pointing at unions and it is clearly wrong but any time you see a group of business people walk into a brothel do not make the mistake of thinking that they wont be using a corporate card.

that is also wrong but at the same time, if it is a privately owned company then it is no body's business as long s they don't claim it as a tax deduction.  what angers me most about the Thomson affair is not so much Thomson himself but his supporters.  The fact that there are people defending not so much his innocence - as that is long gone - but the right of the man to do what he has done.  That is the culture that needs to be removed and it is a labor/union culture.

Quote:

what angers me most about the Thomson affair is not so much Thomson himself but his supporters.  The fact that there are people defending not so much his innocence - as that is long gone - but the right of the man to (allegedly) do what he has done. That is the culture that needs to be removed and it is a labor/union culture.

I added the word 'allegedly,' so I can reply.  Melielongtime, show me a post by anyone who has condoned, or defended what Thomson is alleged to have done.
     

Aussie wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 3:37pm:

Quote: what angers me most about the Thomson affair is not so much Thomson himself but his supporters.  The fact that there are people defending not so much his innocence - as that is long gone - but the right of the man to (allegedly) do what he has done. That is the culture that needs to be removed and it is a labor/union culture. I added the word 'allegedly,' so I can reply.  Melielongtime, show me a post by anyone who has condoned, or defended what Thomson is alleged to have done.

were have you been?  thru multiple threads labor-supporters have said that firstly he didn't do anything wrong at all and then when they were up to their necks in evidence said that it was okay for Thomson to take money out in cash advances.  There wasn't a lot of actual support for the use of hookers but at the same time, little in the way of condemnation either.  and now that Thomson has virtually admitted the facts of the case, where are the labor supporters condemning his use of hookers and his refutigin of it in parliament of all places?

I would refer you to phil-perth who while he may be a rabid labor supporter at least has the ethics to condemn Thomson as a grub.  Most of the rest of you have made excuses for him.  and that is why labor has been home to so many serial sex offenders, corrupt politicians and thieves.  BECAUSE THE CULTURE MAKES ALLOWANCES FOR IT.

Quote:

were have you been?

Right here, and I have read most of what has been posted about Thomson.


Quote:

thru multiple threads labor-supporters have said that firstly he didn't do anything wrong at all and then when they were up to their necks in evidence said that it was okay for Thomson to take money out in cash advances.

Goodo......post some links to these multiple occasions. 


Quote:

There wasn't a lot of actual support for the use of hookers but at the same time, little in the way of condemnation either.

Was there any support, or not a lot of actual support.  If there was some non actual support, show us where we can find it.


Quote:

and now that Thomson has virtually admitted the facts of the case, where are the labor supporters condemning his use of hookers and his refutigin of it in parliament of all places?

Here you go again.  Blatant lie.  None of us know what facts have been signalled as not in dispute, and we will not know until that becomes apparent at the Trial.

Aussie wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 3:37pm:

Quote: what angers me most about the Thomson affair is not so much Thomson himself but his supporters.  The fact that there are people defending not so much his innocence - as that is long gone - but the right of the man to (allegedly) do what he has done. That is the culture that needs to be removed and it is a labor/union culture. I added the word 'allegedly,' so I can reply.  Melielongtime, show me a post by anyone who has condoned, or defended what Thomson is alleged to have done.

be honest aussie.. some on here have given this man a lot of benefit of the doubt..



this case goes right back to 2007..he had the exPM support for a loooooog time. he had the support of the ALP paying his legal bills.he was even given his chance in Parliament.

some on here have said it wasnt him it was Jackson in fact they have more than accused Jackson.they have c&p the vilest things about her...all to make this man look like butter wouldnt melt.....

even the spelling of his name in a photocopy.. which as far as I am aware no one accept photo copies of anything as proof.. yet we have been bombarded with all that.as well you would know..

no one knows if he is innocent or guilty we can only go on what is in the public arena..

but after his appearance in Parliament I know what I believe..

and the test for him will be if he does run in Dobell and we shall how many people believe he is innocent.. wont we..

thats where it really counts..

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 2:30pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 10:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:20pm: cods wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:55pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:31pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:24pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 4:17pm: Quote: I am criticising the idiotic claims in a prior post. The only idiotic claims in prior posts are (a) Thomson is pleading guilty, (b) 'he's more or less admitted that he did do it,'  (c) and that Thomson is not contesting the charges. Do you agree those are false claims? Yes I do they are a obviously dishonest representation of the facts. I'm waiting for melielongtime to answer.  That'll be enlightening. Thomson unlikely to dispute facts of case Date July 19, 2013 Read later Joel Cresswell submit to redditEmail articlePrint Ads by Google Federal independent MP Craig Thomson is unlikely to dispute many of the facts of the fraud case against him, a court has heard. Thomson is accused of misusing credit cards on items including X-rated movies and female escorts, while he was national secretary of the Health Services Union (HSU) and a Labor MP. His lawyer Greg James QC said there was likely to be "very little" debate of the factual matters of the case. "There's not much by way of factual dispute at the moment," he told the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Friday. Advertisement But Mr James said questions would be raised over his authority to use the cards. Thomson said he was not admitting to the charges. "I am not making any admissions. But there is a threshold issue of who had authority to use the credit card, which must be heard first," he said in a statement after the court hearing. "If the Crown cannot prove its case on this issue, all other charges become null and void." interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute No he said that they didn't intend to dispute the facts at the moment. They have specifically stated that it does not mean that they do not dispute the other claims just that if he was entitled to use the card then the other claims are irrelevant. I don't see him winning the point but the likely results do not make it OK for people to be telling lies about what has been said. With the level of your comprehension skills I have to wonder if English is your first language? I wouldn't discuss comprehension if I were you.  His lawyer said that they were unlikely to dispute the facts of the case. How is then incorrect to ssy - as I said - 'ven his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.' the statements are semanticly identical.

Once again LW you show poor form in regards to comprehension , you missed this part of the statement by the lawyer.
"There's not much by way of factual dispute at the moment," he told the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Friday.

Can you understand Aussies point now?

"the statements are semanticly identical" Not when you consider all of the statement there not.

scope wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 2:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 10:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:20pm: cods wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:55pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:31pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 5:24pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 4:17pm: Quote: I am criticising the idiotic claims in a prior post. The only idiotic claims in prior posts are (a) Thomson is pleading guilty, (b) 'he's more or less admitted that he did do it,'  (c) and that Thomson is not contesting the charges. Do you agree those are false claims? Yes I do they are a obviously dishonest representation of the facts. I'm waiting for melielongtime to answer.  That'll be enlightening. Thomson unlikely to dispute facts of case Date July 19, 2013 Read later Joel Cresswell submit to redditEmail articlePrint Ads by Google Federal independent MP Craig Thomson is unlikely to dispute many of the facts of the fraud case against him, a court has heard. Thomson is accused of misusing credit cards on items including X-rated movies and female escorts, while he was national secretary of the Health Services Union (HSU) and a Labor MP. His lawyer Greg James QC said there was likely to be "very little" debate of the factual matters of the case. "There's not much by way of factual dispute at the moment," he told the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Friday. Advertisement But Mr James said questions would be raised over his authority to use the cards. Thomson said he was not admitting to the charges. "I am not making any admissions. But there is a threshold issue of who had authority to use the credit card, which must be heard first," he said in a statement after the court hearing. "If the Crown cannot prove its case on this issue, all other charges become null and void." interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute No he said that they didn't intend to dispute the facts at the moment. They have specifically stated that it does not mean that they do not dispute the other claims just that if he was entitled to use the card then the other claims are irrelevant. I don't see him winning the point but the likely results do not make it OK for people to be telling lies about what has been said. With the level of your comprehension skills I have to wonder if English is your first language? I wouldn't discuss comprehension if I were you.  His lawyer said that they were unlikely to dispute the facts of the case. How is then incorrect to ssy - as I said - 'ven his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.' the statements are semanticly identical. Once again LW you show poor form in regards to comprehension , you missed this part of the statement by the lawyer. "There's not much by way of factual dispute at the moment," he told the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Friday. Can you understand Aussies point now? "the statements are semanticly identical" Not when you consider all of the statement there not.

]"There's not much by way of factual dispute at the moment,"  must mean something different to you than most others.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 2:30pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 10:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:20pm: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute No he said that they didn't intend to dispute the facts at the moment. They have specifically stated that it does not mean that they do not dispute the other claims just that if he was entitled to use the card then the other claims are irrelevant. I don't see him winning the point but the likely results do not make it OK for people to be telling lies about what has been said. With the level of your comprehension skills I have to wonder if English is your first language? I wouldn't discuss comprehension if I were you.  His lawyer said that they were unlikely to dispute the facts of the case. How is then incorrect to ssy - as I said - 'ven his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.' the statements are semanticly identical.

as I said - 'ven his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.'

Thomson the Lawyer and the Judge have all acknowledged that there is no admission to the card usage, Misrepresenting part of the text is dishonest, I point to your comprehension which repeatedly shows a weakness partially in an attempt to defend your honesty.

*

cods wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 3:37pm: Quote: what angers me most about the Thomson affair is not so much Thomson himself but his supporters.  The fact that there are people defending not so much his innocence - as that is long gone - but the right of the man to (allegedly) do what he has done. That is the culture that needs to be removed and it is a labor/union culture. I added the word 'allegedly,' so I can reply.  Melielongtime, show me a post by anyone who has condoned, or defended what Thomson is alleged to have done.       be honest aussie.. some on here have given this man a lot of benefit of the doubt.. this case goes right back to 2007..he had the exPM support for a loooooog time. he had the support of the ALP paying his legal bills.he was even given his chance in Parliament. some on here have said it wasnt him it was Jackson in fact they have more than accused Jackson.they have c&p the vilest things about her...all to make this man look like butter wouldnt melt..... even the spelling of his name in a photocopy.. which as far as I am aware no one accept photo copies of anything as proof.. yet we have been bombarded with all that.as well you would know.. no one knows if he is innocent or guilty we can only go on what is in the public arena.. but after his appearance in Parliament I know what I believe.. and the test for him will be if he does run in Dobell and we shall how many people believe he is innocent.. wont we.. thats where it really counts..

some on here have said it wasnt him it was Jackson

To my knowledge nobody said that it was Jackson though it looks like Jackson was doing the same type of things and has taken action to protect herself by throwing others into the shite. It is also known that Jackson was sleeping with the 2IC of the group doing the investigation that cleared her and found against Thomson and that she delivered a lot of the evidence to the investigation which took a long time in transit leaving the probability that not all the evidence against her made it to the investigation. She also had access to the progress of the investigation. All improper and all tainting the outcome.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 28th, 2013 at 2:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 10:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 6:20pm: interesting highlighted bit.  Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.  So the claims about the hookers are... TRUE.  after all the years of denying them. Even his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute No he said that they didn't intend to dispute the facts at the moment. They have specifically stated that it does not mean that they do not dispute the other claims just that if he was entitled to use the card then the other claims are irrelevant. I don't see him winning the point but the likely results do not make it OK for people to be telling lies about what has been said. With the level of your comprehension skills I have to wonder if English is your first language? I wouldn't discuss comprehension if I were you.  His lawyer said that they were unlikely to dispute the facts of the case. How is then incorrect to ssy - as I said - 'ven his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.' the statements are semanticly identical. as I said - 'ven his lawyer said that the facts are not really in dispute.' Thomson the Lawyer and the Judge have all acknowledged that there is no admission to the card usage, Misrepresenting part of the text is dishonest, I point to your comprehension which repeatedly shows a weakness partially in an attempt to defend your honesty.

you are facing 174 charges. you say that you do not disagree with the facts but then say you don't admit to using the card which is the subject of all 174 charges??? exactly what facts is he agreeing with if he is not agreeing to the facts in the charges??  I find this to be a curiously circular argument.  And so I ask you and aussie... wen he says he is not disputing the facts of the charges then what the hell is he no disputing?

There were people on here happy that Thomson would get away with it and stay in parliament just to stop Tony Abbott winning a no confidence vote.

There seems some very light morality these days.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 7:23pm:

"There's not much by way of factual dispute at the moment,"  must mean something different to you than most others.

You could interpret this the way you have if it were not for the rest of the points made but when all parties have openly stated that your interpretation is incorrect and that there is in fact no admission I think you should accept the fact that you are wrong. The Judge said you are wrong, Thomson said you are wrong and the Lawyer said you are wrong - get it ???
On the Thomson side it means that there is no point starting by talking about or arguing on what the money was spent on if the right to spend it anyway existed.

Quote:

wen he says he is not disputing the facts of the charges then what the hell is he no disputing?

I think you have made a break-through, by accident.  As I have been trying to tell you, no-one (outside the parties) knows what facts have been agreed, and your problem is that you are over-reading what has been said by the Lawyer.  He did not say "he is not disputing the facts of/in the charges," he said that (a) of some facts we (that's us) cannot identify, (b) there is likely to be little dispute.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 7:51pm:

There were people on here happy that Thomson would get away with it and stay in parliament just to stop Tony Abbott winning a no confidence vote. There seems some very light morality these days.

The only reason that Thomson was perused so relentlessly was for that same vote. Williamson was not perused with the same vigour and neither was Jackson etc. Whether Thomson is guilty or not the exercise has been a political witch hunt from the beginning.

Had he been out in the community there would have been no real fuss at all, that is a fact while it may reflect poorly on the community it is still true.

just to stop Tony Abbott

Very important for Australia to stop the TAbbott danger.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 8:03pm:

The only reason that Thomson was perused so relentlessly was for that same vote. Williamson was not perused with the same vigour and neither was Jackson etc. Whether Thomson is guilty or not the exercise has been a political witch hunt from the beginning. Had he been out in the community there would have been no real fuss at all, that is a fact while it may reflect poorly on the community it is still true. just to stop Tony Abbott

I dispute that dna..

THOMO put himself out there to be voted in as an MP....

Williamson and Jackson did not..

dont you think we have every right to believe anyone that is an MP.. is at the least HONEST and above BEING DRAGGED THROUGH THE COURTS FOR STEALING.

you seem to believe that being a member of parliament should give him or anyone I guess special treatment..

I dont happen to believe that in fact I expect Better if not MORE from our members and I dont care which side they are on..

maybe its time you started expecting more instead of always finding and excuse for their behavior...

if he had been in the private sector... even a copper he would have been suspended  from day one....

sorry if its a crime to expect more from our parliamentarians..

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2013 at 3:50pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 3:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 3:11pm: Lobo wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 3:09pm: matty wrote on Jul 27th, 2013 at 12:00am: Lobo wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 5:12pm: matty wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Why would anyone support Thommo? Maybe they think he is innocent ?? I could equally ask how anyone could support Abbott I don't understand that either. 1. He's more or less admitted that he did do it. 2. What has Abbott done on the same level? He has?? 'More or less', eh??? Do tell...... :) He's pleading guilty to the charges. He is?? "Embattled federal MP Craig Thomson has signalled for the first time he may be willing to make concessions over his alleged use of a union credit card to pay for porn and prostitutes, and his legal team has successfully argued for the case to be heard in a lower court." :) it is good to see you supporting labors criminals - people who take half a million dollars of union money and spend it on himself and hookers.  Its bad enough that labor has these people in its ranks; it is worse that dopes like you support him. When was he convicted of taking union money and spending it on himself and hookers? Did this happen yesterday?    :-/ he was ARRESTED for the charges and has appeared in court more than once.

Being arrested, and subsequently appearing in court, is not the same as being convicted of a crime.

Here, this may help you:

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/legal_system.html