So much for the presumption of innocence SM and the separation of powers.

I certainly wouldn't stoop so low as call someone a stooge or grub SM, but you are definitely of the "born to rule" variety.

Making proclamations has become the substance of the Coalition rhetoric of late and they work on the theory that if you repeat something enough times, people start to believe it, no matter how wildly inaccurate the rhetoric is. Throw in a few adjectives describing character to flavour the dissent and voila Coalition Policy.

A good opposition would allow the Gov't to govern, as the result of the recent election determines. It would build on it's own policy's in the preparation for the next election, not block and knock and promise to reverse anything the elected Gov't of the day seeks to do.

The Federal Coalition opposition are acting as if a Gov't in exile, and wherever possible using State powers to frustrate even sabotage the course of the elected Gov't, such as leaning on the NSW police to act from the benches of the State Gov't on the Thomson matter, is not democracy in action, it is most probably the misuse of state powers, to assist the causes of their Federal buddies, just itching too have an election. "Any sort of election will do".

Same thing Joh did when he sent a "ring in Senator" to Canberra to un-democratically change the balance of power in 1975.

T2,

Presumption of innocence is for the courts, which CT has been assiduously avoiding, and labor has been shielding him.

By your rational Adolf Hitler was never found guilty in a court and should be presumed innocent.

While Shadow Minister I did use that quote I think you should have read my last link, it was used in reference to one of yours.
And just a few thoughts.
CT will know, you and I too, after the investigation, if he must face court.
Mate, gee not the right word, but are things ok, yes know that ok day is a bit further on but bloke, are you right?
OFF late you let the anger out ,not seen you swear this much, not seen you this loose.
You did want that thought about CT not facing up to a charge yet to be laid to be seen as funny?
Balance,some say you give us balance here?
Let me see you want a suspended sentence for this man?
Before he is charged,ok so far.
By suspended sentence we mean a Lynching now thats it isn't it?
Now keep the rope, We can nick in and get the bloke with the car pool problems and that lady senator.
No mate not me, I will let the courts have a look.
How are you going to handle the tripe like this your side will get AG?
BET YOU WILL SAY FAIR GO BLOKE .

No SM, that is in your assessment. What I am saying simply is that democracy works better, when there is a separation of powers.

When the judiciary do there duty in accordance with the law without the interference of Gov't, I feel best represented.

Gov't in a democracy should never influence or place pressure upon it's enforcement agencies or judiciary to prosecute, particularly political opponents. We see this type of activity in 3rd world countries, don't we? SM. Or am I just imagining it.

Craig Thomson may have used a credit card to procure prostitutes SM, and the Gov't may have acted in behest of his preservation within Parliament, but neither placed pressure upon agencies beyond the Parliament as George Brandis did with letters and phone calls to the State Attorney General to lobby for such.

In this action designed to de-stabilise a sitting Gov't a new political low, has been reached in my view SM. And for the first time in Australian political history in my memory , has a Federal Opposition exerted direct influence upon a State Gov't of the same colour, resulting in pressure being placed on a State enforcement instrument to investigate. And prior too any complainant having presented a complaint.

In addition, the complainant the HSU or their CEO having been influenced by publicity and perhaps urging, has presented as a complainant there after, and in effect, has changed or perverted the natural course of justice for Craig Thomson.

As wild a scenario as you could claim it too be SM, it is now possible that Liberal Party have in fact made it impossible for Craig Thomson to get a fair hearing on this matter.

But you don't care that this basic tenet of Democracy is being manipulated here, do you SM ?. It is power at any cost for you isn't it.

T2

"but neither placed pressure upon agencies beyond the Parliament as George Brandis did with letters and phone calls to the State Attorney General to lobby for such."

Perhaps you know something that the rest of Australia does not? Not even the labor party has made this assertion.

Whereas the Labor party's interference in this criminal case is clear, and influence right from the top is being used to prevent justice from being seen.

Is it not true ? SM, that George Brandis, sent a letter to the NSW Police advocating the investigation of Craig Thomson.

Was it not at least, or is it not at least possible, that a phone call was made to the appropriate NSW Gov't Minister, in order that influence be exerted upon the outcome of the decision making process of the NSW police or prosecution, prior too the complainant making a complaint. This is my question?. And is this politically motivated ?.

I think it is 80% political and 20% legitimate.