Australian Politics Forum - Why would anyone support Thommo?

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #105 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 11:56am

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

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.

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

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23818 Carlsbad, CA Gender:	Re: Why would anyone support Thommo? Reply #106 - 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.
Back to top	Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #107 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 12:25pm

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

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.

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.. Grin

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 88048	Re: Why would anyone support Thommo? Reply #108 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 12:26pm 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!
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59458
Here
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #109 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 1:03pm

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

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

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.

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.. Grin

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23818 Carlsbad, CA Gender:	Re: Why would anyone support Thommo? Reply #110 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 1:30pm You can do anything with a well timed we thought out restructure. I've removed 3 sh1t employees over my career with a restructure.
Back to top	Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #111 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 2:30pm

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #112 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 2:36pm

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

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.

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??

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #113 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 2:40pm

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

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.

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.

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

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38877
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #114 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #115 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 3:48pm

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.

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

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38877
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #116 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 4:15pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #117 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 4:19pm

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..

Back to top

IP Logged

scope

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1417
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #118 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 7:17pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #119 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 7:23pm

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