Hi 579,

Yes, Thomson is innocent until proven guilty. In any case, it's not always a crime to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars for prostitutes. And you imply, yes, in a sense, as time passes, the impact of a crime lessens, doesn't it ? So by now, whatever 'crime' he might have committed years ago has now faded, almost to insignificance. Those hospital cleaners have nothing to complain about.

And yes, Slipper has every right to root some other bloke if he is willing - that's not a crime either these days. And Slipper's travel chits may be quite genuine - he might have had legitimate business all over Sydney at all odd times, I don't see anything wrong with that.

So both of these men might be completely innocent of any of the disgusting accusations that Abbott - Abbott ! - might make about them incessantly. Clearly, this is all a put-up job by the Liberals: to find some tiny, minor issue and inflate it like this. But do they think that everybody has forgotten about that Liberal MP who tried to smuggle in a colour-TV, back in the eighties ?

So we know the real culprit in all of this:

Abbott !

Nellsbells,

Trying the pity card! Really! I don't see anyone here or on the news having a go at the families of Thomson or Slipper. The stench surrounding them and the Labor party is entirely of their doing, and Juliar's lack of integrity.

As far as proof is concerned, the proof against Thomson is pretty much iron clad, the only reason he is not languishing in jail appears to me because his union cronies in FWA have blocked any prosecution of him.

As for Slipper, a civil case does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, and Ashby would be liable for huge costs if he could not show substantial corroborating evidence. That he has launched a court case with the texts forensically tested shows that he certainly thinks that he has a winner.

579,

What you suggested would have been legal. However, signing it off as a legitimate business expense is what makes it fraud. The withdrawal of about $100 000 for personal use is also theft.

Regarding Slipper, sleeping with a male colleague is inappropriate, being a sex pest is illegal.

Hi again 579,

I'm slow today. Your comment, that -

" .... If the prostitute was for personal use, it would have been appropriate for him to reimburse his credit card with the amount paid for prostitute."

- apart from what other use a prostitute may offer besides 'personal use', we have Thomson's word that somebody else, looking exactly like him, used his credit card, forged his signature exactly, showed what looked like his driver's licence and put all his papers and cards back in place from where they had been stolen.

And that - as you suggest - on every one of those many occasions where he, Thomson, actually used prostitutes, he paid for their 'personal use' with his own money, his own credit card, as any honest man would. I think we should leave it at that and just leave him alone to get on with his pre-selection battle.

Cheers,

Joe

I think all you can hope for is to brand Slipper a bully.
Thompson's evidence is all circumstantial, and in a few years when they wade through all of the concerns, we may hear an outcome one way or another.
Yes there was a matter of a TV, colour as well, but that was a civil matter.
When we get some policies from the opposition of what they stand for we can begin to make some judgement on who is best for this country.
There was an attempt at something resembling economics last week, but there seemed to be some confusion.
Who knows there could be another try this week.

579,

Your denials shows why Labour in NSW, QLD, WA and Federally is totally on the nose. You are not a member are you? Even Belly has had to concede the obvious.