P,

At the moment, I don't presently have the time (maybe later) to find the info again, but study tours are not governed by the same provisions as the travel entitlements and require a justification and prior approval. The study covers travel both ways, accommodation and other expenses.

Barnaby was offered free travel to and from India, and as part of the study had budgeted travel to and from Malaysia. The timing of the study was as I said previously not a coincidence and saved Gina travel costs, the tax payer travel costs, and Barnaby a lot of travelling time. Do I need to explain it any more simply?

Secondly your understanding of legal proceedings is scary as a civil trial does not include "charges", but financial claims, and mediation is often a precursor to a court trial, generally prefered because it is far cheaper and less time consuming, however, if no resolution is achieved, it moves to a full court case.

Considering that Thomson is near bankrupt, the FWA spending a hundred thousand or more on a court trial, getting a judgement of a couple of $100 000, and Thomson declaring bankruptcy and only paying a pittance is not very smart.

Yes, SM...I regretted inserting the word "charges"...I knew you'd pick up on it (fair enough)Wish we could correct posts sometimes : )

Who do you think you're kidding with this?:

"....and mediation is often a precursor to a court trial, generally prefered because it is far cheaper and less time consuming, however, if no resolution is achieved, it moves to a full court case."

As if the FWA gives a stuff about Thomson's financial situation.

They started out with 500 claims, which was slowly dwindled to around 30.

The reason they have requested mediation is their case has all but collapsed.

Will also ask...what do you make of Don Randall claiming expenses for travelling to "Melbourne"...

For a "sitting of Parliament"....

On a Sunday.....

?

P,

I despair!

How can the FWA case have collapsed? Thomson has in his criminal case is not contesting any of the evidence presented, in other words he has admitted that all the evidence presented is correct. The trial is thus only to determine his level of intent and to determine the sentence.

The effect of this is that he cannot contest any of this evidence in the civil case either. A civil case would then again be not to determine whether he is responsible (as he has already admitted this) but simply to determine the extent to which he can be held liable and the sum of money which he has to pay.

Given that he is near bankrupt, and hardly has a pot to piss in, a judgement against him for a sum many times greater than he can pay is pointless, and mediation is a recognised way to determine a reasonable settlement.

SM,

"....Thomson has in his criminal case is not contesting any of the evidence presented, in other words he has admitted that all the evidence presented is correct...."

Not true.

His lawyer said "there would be little dispute or debate about the facts of the charges"...which should not be taken as Thomson not contesting them.

Read this unambiguous statement by Thomson:

http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=102173&sid=26U5&ext=PDF&lcl=STATEMENT-BY-CRAIG-THOMSON.pdf&usr=DobellThommo&doc=154664867&key=key-iac8ab59kkyiyrrj3l8

Therefore, your statement - (and entire post):

".....The trial is thus only to determine his level of intent and to determine the sentence."

....is simply balderdash.

Parrot,

You are determined to go down fighting a rear guard action.

First, there was no adverse finding yet by the FWA, so there was no case against CT.

Next, CT was not being prosecuted, So there was no case.

Next CT was being prosecuted, but had not been found guilty, So CT was innocent.

Now CT has admitted to all the evidence incl
that his card was used to pay for prostitutes and verified with his drivers license and a signature that was verified as his.
A hotel room rented by him received a call from this same brothel at roughly the same time.

But as CT has put out a short letter claiming he intends to fight this it must all be OK? What planet do you live on?

SM,

CT has not admitted to all the evidence.

You are buying the garbage put out by MSM regarding the ambiguous comments of CT's lawyer.

He released that statement to clarify the issue.

Some MSM included it in later reports to clear up the matter.

What is it about this that you don't understand?:

(Craig Thomson statement)

".....Despite some media reports, I am not making any admissions....."

He has admitted nothing.

You are a spinner, SM.

A partisan spinner who would deny anyone he didn't approve of the presumption of innocence.

Let's hope your type are a minority in the community.