The right of innocence is real but not in the case of FWA legislation.
Not sure if FWA legislation in relation to embezzlement presumes guilt
like it does in sex harrisment cases.

So some legislation presumes the accused is guilty unless they can
prove their innocence.
Generally I believe it applies to employers who of course in Labour's
opinion must always be guilty.

So all those including politicians are probably wrong when they say
that Thompson is innocent until proven guilty.

In any case it has always been when someone is accused of improper
behaviour they stand down until the matter is settled.
That has been done in parliament in the past, not just the party room.

However, as we are all meant to be equal under the law, it is not clear that Mr Thomson's position as a member of the Federal parliament should have any bearing on due process. Certainly he would have to be made to step aside if criminal charges were laid and he were to be remanded, either in custody or on bail, but this would have had to require his appearance before a magistrate. In the absence of such circumstance, he must be presumed innocent of any charge, and therefore entitled to retain his position in the parliament.

If, however, he were still an office holder in the HSU, it would not perhaps be unreasonable for the Union to require him to stand down on paid or unpaid leave until the matter was satisfactorily resolved.

A person should not be dismissed from office on mere suspicion or allegation, even if it be the highest office in the land - for to do so would be to 'take the law into one's own hands', and therefore contrary to law, as I understand it.

Although we may expect our politicians to remain above reproach, such aspirations should not cause a circumvention of due legal process.

As much as we may feel outraged at parliamentary antics in general, or that any of our parliamentary representatives may have acted imprudently, I don't see how the government or parliament can be found at fault in the handling of this case - except that I feel the government should reasonably have required FWA to have expedited its investigations.

There is little doubt this matter will end up in court? When that day finally dawns the case will likely be thrown out; given the amount of pre trial public judging, there is simply no way for the accused to actually get a fair trial.
It might be also true that Slipper, while still a coalition member, had a much more serious case to answer, regarding claimed expenses? And over a period of 9 parliaments?
Nowhere do we see where he was censored, and none of the posters here, seem to feel in any way aggrieved? The supposed outrage seems very selective and aimed primarily at Thomson?
Were I a member of Parliament I would start to worry, given what is good for the goose is also good for the gander? Particularly when one considers how easy it seems to be, to hack into email and or phone mail/records etc. And or, the existence of quite comprehensive dirt files?
Besides, all that is required to spark an inquisition is a little indiscretion or chance remark made when somewhat inebriated etc. Or indeed, documents very conveniently falling from a briefcase, in sight of the press gallery?
Where was all the public outrage, when Peter Reith was the one in the hot seat over some similar indiscretion?
Perhaps Thomson ought to arrive at the next sitting, with his head shaved and clothed in sack clothe and ashes, just to expose the sheer hypocrisy, that so marks that place now? Rhrosty.

Thomson is entitled to the presumption of innocence as we all are but I'm left wondering if he voted against the government when they introduced changes to Family Law which in effect removed that right from men accused of DV.

The aim of the law should be to minimise long term consequences on an individual of unproven accusations. Often we don't try to achieve that, if you are charged with a crime and not in a special situation then you have to wear the costs of your own defence even if acquitted. There is no protection for most against flow on consequences of unproven allegations. The family law changes introduced by this government don't appear to have done anything to protect those accused of DV from the long term consequences which can be far more serious than the inability to sit in parliament for a period.

The presumption of innocence is important but it is apparently more important for Thomson than for people less crucial to the governments ability to hold onto power.

R0bert

Mirko, the lawyer sacked from the refugee review tribunal because he supported torture should be silent on legal issues.

Thomson cannot be charged with any misuse of credit cards because there was no policy to breach.

This is the level of the reasoning of FWA and it should be rejected.

Allow me to repeat something from days ago re Thomson and his “charges”
In Chapter 6 of the Fair Work Report they have 3 paragraphs where they explain their reasoning.
In para 592 they say there was no formal policy on travel, rather an informal understanding that allowed his expenditure.
In para 598 they say there was no policy allowing him to do it.
In para 599 they say his terms of employment did not specifically allow him to do it.
So in 3 paras they say there was no policy anywhere saying he could or could not spend money.
Incredibly they go on to say he “therefore broke the rules”.I do not see the logic chain there. I understand people are upset and there is a moral or ethical question involved but the legal one is murky

Bruce, you need to do a back ground check on the shenanigans of Kathy Jackson, Thomson's accuser, and her rotten husband before you say Thomson is guilty of something.

And read beyond the ridiculous partisan hacks in the media to the reasonings I have posted.

How is it possible to breach rules that do not exist?

And another little tid bit - Thomson was paid almost half of Jackson's salary, Jackson and her husband have also been accused of rorts and claim their innocence without anyone torturing them.

Jackson is also engaged to a FWA investigator - she is a liar who bankrupted the Victorian HSU after a 15 year battle for power against Pauline Fegan.

The problem with the lazy is they don't bother to research things for themselves, - so much easier for old men and women to titter like virgins behind their Victorian fans at the mention of brothels.

It seems to have escaped notice that sex workers are not criminals, I have friends who were sex workers and they are ordinary women.

But they were in the union and the union paid for their mandatory health checks.

As they still do as far as I know.

So why don't all the whiney cry babies grow up and do some reading instead.

Thomson was also accused of using funds to set up a NSW branch without permission which would be an amazing feat wouldn't it?

He is not involved in the mess with HSU East, those claims only go back to 2008 and he has not been in the union since 2007.

Gordon Wood claimed he was innocent but the media went along with junk science to claim he was guilty.

As they still do with Ali Al Jenabi.

Bruce Haigh in particular should know better.