Australian Politics Forum - Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense

PoliticalReality

Full Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 155
Gender: male

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #15 - May 24^th, 2012 at 2:48pm

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

But half a million?

It's legit if the Executive and the Council think it is, and I assert that they did. $500k equates to about $6 a member, seems a small price to pay to have WorkChoice brought down - some would say a bargain.

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig Thomson needed money - for what?

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg Gold Member Offline WE ARE BORG Posts: 26513 Australia	Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense Reply #16 - May 24^th, 2012 at 2:51pm When will you realise that if you take away his "innocent until proven guilty" you take away everyones presumption of innocence? We cant set that precedent. SOB
Back to top	Whaaaaaah! I'm a Moron! - edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #17 - May 24^th, 2012 at 3:17pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

But half a million?

It's legit if the Executive and the Council think it is, and I assert that they did. $500k equates to about $6 a member, seems a small price to pay to have WorkChoice brought down - some would say a bargain.

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig Thomson needed money - for what?

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds like you are living there with him.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg Gold Member Offline WE ARE BORG Posts: 26513 Australia	Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense Reply #18 - May 24^th, 2012 at 3:34pm Quote: EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe. Show me where they have been shown to be false. In the media right? Have YOU read the 1100 page report? SOB
Back to top	Whaaaaaah! I'm a Moron! - edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope IP Logged

PoliticalReality

Full Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 155
Gender: male

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #19 - May 24^th, 2012 at 3:45pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

But half a million?

It's legit if the Executive and the Council think it is, and I assert that they did. $500k equates to about $6 a member, seems a small price to pay to have WorkChoice brought down - some would say a bargain.

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig Thomson needed money - for what?

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

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

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

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

Craig Thomson in Parliament saying EXACTLY that.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Sounds like you are living there with him.

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 26238 Gender:	Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense Reply #20 - May 24^th, 2012 at 3:46pm Maqqa wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 12:58pm: I believe there were 181 breaches found by the FWA. Your attempt to use the amounts to trivialise this issue is pathetic ... and amateurish!
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #21 - May 24^th, 2012 at 5:25pm

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