>>the collective noun for a group of Baboons, is a parliament.<<

The only animals which come in parliaments are owls, ravens and rooks. Baboons come in troops or flanges.

Cheers,

Tony

Sadly, for the joke, it is a parliament of owls...

But it is a congress of baboons when it's not a troop.

There are pages of suggestions (most unable to be posted here) for collective nouns for parliamentarians but mine is:

A Privilege of politicians?

The Labour/Greens were the loudest squealars when calling for Peter Hollingwoth blood a few years ago. Guilt by association was enough for them to use the leftist media to denograte a man's character and force him from office. It is these same hypocrites who know are protecting, paying legal fees and acting as Pilate in one go when it comes to cleaners money. Breathtaking hypocrisy! I wonder how the Defence Chief who because of political expedience was made to stand aside by the Defense Minister must feel. His name was made mud only to be found innocent but it did not stop the Labour/Greens from demanding he stand aside. It is unbelievable that we still have abouyt 27% of the population willing to vote for this mob.

I prefer a 'vacuum' of politicians

Please excuse my ignorance of the law, but I would have thought Craig Thomson's alleged crime(s) included submitting credit card statements which included payments for questionable or spurious services for payment by the Union. Are we to believe he did not check the charges on those statements to ensure they were validly incurred, were in fact incurred by himself, and were a valid responsibility of the Union, and not a 'personal' expense? Or that he could have been so irresponsible as to not vet those statements at all before submitting them for payment? Or that Union procedures could have been so slack that he (Mr Thomson) never had to vet them at all or to approve them for payment by the Union?

Are most people or organisations so careless with the vetting of their credit card or bank statements? I would have thought not. Should we expect less of a public office holder or Union, when dealing with public or other people's money, than we would reasonably expect of ourselves, a spouse or dependent? Such beggars belief. And, as the head of that Union Branch, would not Mr Thomson be held to also be responsible for the adequacy of the procedures used for vetting the credit card statements relating to all credit cards issued by the Branch?

If such allegations are supported by the FWA report are we expected to accept that a crime (of fraud or misappropriation) has not occurred, but merely an innocent oversight - not once, but on multiple occasions - and that this could be resolved by the mere repayment of any 'personal' expenses by Mr Thomson to the Union, with perhaps a light rap over the knuckles?

Crime, or civil misdemeanor? Justice or joke? Are contributing Union members not entitled to due process, and the parliament and people of Australia not similarly entitled?

Let the facts and evidence determine, but two things seem clear, FWA is a flawed organisation, and the HSU a debacle. Let Mr Thomson have his day in court - anything less would be a gross miscarriage of reasonable expectations.

SP,

Thomson checked and signed off the prostitutes against the credit card account. If he had taken it as a personal expense and paid it back at the time he would not be in the poo now.