Hear Hear! Excellent article.

When it comes to matters of law and or our constitution, opinion ought at the very least be informed. The last time I looked it was not an indictable offence to have sex with a paid sex worker.
Australia is hardly a third world country, where survival may include working in the world's oldest profession; whereas, many who work in it here, do so by choice.
Prisoners in remand have actually been charged with a criminal offence. Thomson has yet to be charged. So, the presumption of innocence still stands, and no matter how many foreigners don't care for it or democracy and the rule of law, remains ironclad in our constitution.
All that is currently proposed is a civil suit, arguably to recover any and all inappropriately used union funds. Mr Abbott is not a judge or executioner, and the coalition benches are not a jury, which currently seems to be invoking mob rule; and or, resembles a lynch mob?
Something that might also apply to the ill-informed, patently politicking Author?
The court of public opinion is not a few legally illiterate radio shock jocks, who basically think for a small public demographic, yet to learn to do it for themselves!
The court of public opinion will have a chance to pass judgement on Thomson at the very next election!
What is on almost daily display here, could come back to haunt many a candidate; given the kangaroo court our parliament seems to have become, and very dangerous ground, given the number of potential skeletons in closets.
Lets not forget that Thomson is not the only one that can be hurt here, but also a completely innocent and trusting wife with two small children to consider; and, family and friends.
If we all had our sins tattooed on our foreheads, we'd likely have a lot less to say about others.
Let he who is entirely without sin cast the first stone. Rhrosty.

It's time for all monkeys in zoo to learn some table-manners.
They should sit straight, eat with a fork, spoon and knife, wipe their mouth with a napkin at the end of their meal and not lift their tails to expose their back-sides.

After all the public pays to enter and see them, it is not unreasonable to expect them to behave with exemplary respect.

Our society is so confused about the presumption of innocence. As far as the police and courts are concerned, it amounts to little more than hollow words at best, or an outright lie at worst.

It is often the latter. If you find yourself in trouble with the cops, having done nothing wrong, you’re pretty well screwed unless you can prove your innocence, which is rarely possible.

The presumption of guilt is what really applies most of the time.

“In the end, Thomson is accused of using the hard earned money of union members to have sex with prostitutes. The gravity of the allegation is informed by nature of the position now occupied by Thomson.”
If the accusation is true, at least the services seem to have been paid for on this occasion. For others, such as with “Memphis Trousers” Mal, and “Silver Budgie” Bob, considerable doubt exists whether such services (as reputed) were actually paid for at all, and if they had been it would have been with Australian taxpayers “hard earned dollars” for their Prime Ministerial duties.
If the Parliament arrogates to itself, above the right of the electorate, to determine who - at any particular time - is fit to represent the voters then we are well on the way to losing the “demo” out of “democracy”. The qualifications required for a representative are set down within the constitution, should remain so, and be adhered to.

One of the problems with this matter is that the governments own FWA has produced the damning report. Did FWA spend three or so years and a lot of the taxpayers money to produce 1100 pages of fabrication?