Shadow Minister:

On the surface, he appears to be corrupt. It's certainly very damning for Labor.

Happy?

Now can you make a similar post about one of the many missteps that the coalition has made, in an effort to prove that you're capable of objectivity?

I just thought I'd give you the chance to demonstrate that you're capable of objectively critiquing both sides, instead of just zealously criticizing one side, in the manner of someone with a vested interest. Plus, it's pretty off-putting when someone shows they're not interested in genuine discussion, they're just here to slander one side of politics, which is funny as both sides seem to be out-doing each other in terms of crass populism.

Up for a challenge?

Disregard first post. I clicked post comment instead of post revision, then clicked post revision, and ended up with both.

TRTL

I was unable to find any instance where a Liberal PM intervened to cover up blatant fraud and corruption by one of his back benchers.

Given the disproportionate weighting of Greens and Labor supporters in this forum, and their eagerness to dredge up minor infractions from years ago, I would have expected to already see lists of "crimes". That I haven't indicates that there probably is nothing comparable.

Perhaps you could enlighten us. The challenge for you is to produce something this decade.

How do you disregard the past, history don't go away. It gets slimier with age,

Rechtub I am as much as possible not responding to you.
Your bitter unfounded posts talk for them selves.
Matched by your failure to understand simple truths.
I will continue to read this thread after this post.
But under current Australian law I firmly think you have defamed this man.
On what basis, using what evidence do you claim this man used government funds?
What government please and what funds.
As many will be aware fair work Australia is conducting an investigation, this persons former employment puts him under laws they control.
In what country, before trial, are offenders or possible offenders convicted before trial.
I am forever offended by your constant abuse of us Labor voters.
But heavily discounting your accountability for your statements.
It is clear you have little or no understanding of the subject.

Belly,

Under law, defamation is only possible if the allegations are false, as the collapse of Thomson's defamation case against Fairfax attests. Given the huge volume of evidence mounting a defamation case would have to show that either the evidence was false, or that it was unreasonable to conclude that Thomson hired prostitutes and got the union to pay for it.

For those laborites clamouring for silence whilst due process takes its course, the hypocrisy behind that is because Labor is deliberately impeding due process.

The focus on Thomson and Juliar will continue until due process is no longer impeded and Juliar makes full account of her involvement in the cover up.