Australian Politics Forum - Why would anyone support Thommo?

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #75 - Jul 27^th, 2013 at 6:50pm

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

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.

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

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

Alinta

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1470
Melbourne
Gender: female

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #76 - Jul 27^th, 2013 at 6:58pm

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38877
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #77 - Jul 27^th, 2013 at 7:09pm

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

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.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Lobo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7407
Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #78 - Jul 27^th, 2013 at 7:09pm

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

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).

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??

Cheesy

Back to top

"What's in store for me in the direction I don't take?"-Jack Kerouac.

IP Logged

Alinta

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1470
Melbourne
Gender: female

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #79 - Jul 27^th, 2013 at 7:17pm

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

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

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.

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....

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38877 Gender:	Re: Why would anyone support Thommo? Reply #80 - Jul 27^th, 2013 at 7:22pm 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!
Back to top	IP Logged

Lobo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7407
Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #81 - Jul 27^th, 2013 at 7:24pm

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

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

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

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.

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....

Back to top

"What's in store for me in the direction I don't take?"-Jack Kerouac.

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #82 - 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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Lobo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7407
Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #83 - Jul 27^th, 2013 at 8:19pm

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.

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?

Back to top

"What's in store for me in the direction I don't take?"-Jack Kerouac.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75379
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #84 - Jul 27^th, 2013 at 8:30pm

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

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

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).

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)

I hope I cleared that up for you

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Lobo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7407
Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #85 - Jul 27^th, 2013 at 8:54pm

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

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

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

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).

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)

I hope I cleared that up for you

Back to top

"What's in store for me in the direction I don't take?"-Jack Kerouac.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59448
Here
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #86 - 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?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #87 - Jul 27^th, 2013 at 10:42pm

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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 40785 Gender:	Re: Why would anyone support Thommo? Reply #88 - Jul 27^th, 2013 at 11:59pm the left would support thommo for his vote
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

RightSadFred

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2220
Gender: male

Re: Why would anyone support Thommo?
Reply #89 - Jul 28^th, 2013 at 7:53am

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged