In typical fashion Oakeshott and Windsor state that they are appalled by the criminal activity in the HSU, and demand that Thomson make a speech to parliament.

However, I bet that when the chips are down, that neither of these neither of these self interested politicians will push for anything more than a slap on the wrist for Thomson, as anything more will see them join the unemployment queue.

Talk is cheap, but with these two, I am happy to bet that self interest trumps stated values hands down.

It's revealing to note that "implied" in your post is that Thompson is guilty. You may not be aware of this, but in this country a man is not declared guilty until a court of law convicts him. If you're not happy with this, then you are perfectly welcome to migrate to North Korea or China or maybe Cuba, where your penchant for amateur prejudgement will find a welcoming home. Oh yes, God bless Fidel.

Oops ..... "Thomson".

Good morning SM, if you are not Abbott are you his speech writer?
Spin looks same DNA.

country a man is not declared guilty until a court of law convicts him
FP72E,
Dragging out the process of convicting is in itself a crime. What really matters will this bloke if convicted still get a generous taxpayer funded superannuation ? I bet he will whilst decent people will have to go on struggling

I have to wonder if yo lot will ever stop either supporting, or making excuses for what has to be the worst government in history.

This guy has humiliated himself, with his notion that someone else used his phone, and his credit card, then, he would borrow them for permissible business, while they were not using them to order and pay for hookers etc.

Yea right, pull the other one!

In any case, there appears to be sufcient evidence to throw him out of the parliment, and not just for his vote either.

I read a funny post on another blog. A story of an ALP MP turning up at parliament house with a pig on a piece of string.

The pig was crapping all over the place and another MP asked what he was going to do with the pig. Keep it replied the first MP. What about the stench, asked the second MP?

Well, the pig will just have to get used to it!

Dear Shadow Minister,

Interesting thread. So you believe that Rob Oakeshott and
Tony Windsor should now share in Mr Thomson's odium
for protecting him?

Then I assume you would also apply that standard to
Mr Abbott regarding Bill Heffernan.

Or is there one set of behavioural rules when it comes
to the Liberal Party and a different set for all others.

As you stated in your opening post, "Talk is cheap, but with
these two, I am happy to bet that self-interest trumps
stated values hands down."

I would say you're spot on.
You could not have stated it better - regarding Mr Abbott and
the recent - Bill Heffernan scenario. Let's see if you turn
out to be right.

FP72E,

Assumption of innocence only applies to criminal trials, not civil, not public opinion, and not FWA investigations.

That Thomson spent union money on prostitutes is beyond reasonable doubt, that he used union money to promote his own personal political ambitions is also beyond doubt. That he has not yet gone to criminal trial is precisely because of Labor protection.

Lexi,

Are you desperate enough to try and compare Heffernan to Thomson? But at least you agree that Oakeshott and Windsor's protection of Thomson also taints them with the stench of Thomson's corruption.

Dear Shadow Minister,

As you stated in your opening post:

"Talk is cheap...I am happy to bet that self-interest
trumps stated values hands down."

Thanks for proving the point.
In your and Mr Abbott's case - self interest
does indeed trump stated values hands down.

Lexi,

Before charging at windmills compare apples with apples. Heffernan has had allegations levelled against him. No changes, no civil action. Heffernan, and Slipper both acted inappropriately, and both were stipped of parliamentary positions by the liberals. The coalition is simply asking that Slipper face the same consequences for his action. There is no inconsistency there.

Thomson has had a investigation against him provide vast quantities of evidence that he has pilfered hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lowest paid, and deserves a far more serious sanction.

Bob Ellis on Craig Thomson:

http://www.ellistabletalk.com/2012/05/20/the-innocence-of-craig-thomson/#comment-9644

Ludwig, what a joke.

Bob Ellis's whole argument why Thomson is innocent is that he had no motive. What motives do any prostitute's clients have?

The examples of Chamberlain and Tampa did not have the vast body of corroborating evidence that Thomson has. They also did not have the vast array of other illegal expenditure and corrupt activities.

The EVIDENCE about Thompson is not settled, although SM and BUTCH, are happy to call the score.
Identity theft is widespread, and Jackson has vested interest's.
Abbott is more guilty than Thompson, defamation is serious, 6-12.
I would not convict Thompson, until it has been through a court.

"The EVIDENCE about Thompson is not settled." actually with the FWA report it pretty much is.

"Identity theft is widespread" Stealing his actual credit card, signing the name, providing his actual driver's license as photographic proof, using his mobile phone and hotel room phone to phone the agency? Never heard of this before.

By the way, that is only the least of the accusations, they also include drawing $100k from his card for personal use, spending union money on his election campaign, and colluding with a supplier to defraud the union.

Let's see whether he lies to parliament.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Its not a case of "apples and oranges,"
as you imply with the Heffernan scenario.
But a case of - one set of rules for us -
and another for others. As the following link
shows:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/labor-puts-heat-on-abbott-over-heffernan-20120520-1yyik.html

The FWA report is just that, what they are saying these is these things did happen. That is not in dispute.
Thompson has been charged with nothing, what's the hold up.
Apparently the relevant authorities are not convinced either.
All Thompson is guilty of is getting in the way of the noalition.
Abbott may as well defend himself, any thing else would be a waste.
The only thing that has been achieved so far is Abbott getting himself in a corner.
The slipper affair has the fingerprints of the noalition all over it.
The precedence being set is dangerous.
Parliament is not judge and jury, neither is the public.

Lexi,

There is no comparison with Thomson in either the seriousness of the allegations or the corroborating evidence.

With Slipper the claims of sexual harassment were backed up with forensically certified texts and now statements from other staffers.

As of yet with Heffernan we have the word of one man with no other witnesses. If the situation changes and there is more than the word of one disgruntled staffer, then I agree that he should be stood down, and he probably will. The ball will then be in Labor's court to remove Slipper from the position of Speaker. I assume then you will support this action.

579

The FWA has not referred its findings to the police, that is the hold up. There is however, on going investigations.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't believe in making pre-judgements and I do
support equal treatment and due process no matter
what side of politics you're on. I don't believe
in one set of values for some and another for others.
And I do believe in the full force of the law - if
found guilty.

It shall be interesting to see what develops in the
Slipper case - especially with all the questions
currently being asked about Liberal Party involvement
in bringing Slipper down with Ashby. Where Christopher
Pyne fits into all this with the emails exchanged
with Ashby) hopefully will be clarified. Mr Abbott has
stated he has no "specific" knowledge of any involvement.
Perhaps he should investigate the matter - or tell us
what he does know. I watched "The Insiders," on Sunday
morning - and the matter will not simply go away.
Even MP - Barnaby Joyce is questioning Mr Ashby's motives.

Lexi,

If you support equal treatment, then when the allegations become more than one man's claim I will support Heffernan's removal from senate positions, and I expect you to support Slipper's removal as Speaker.

Secondly, whether Ashby spoke to anyone before taking civil action is irrelevant. Labor is just trying to deflect the attention from its own misdeeds.

This is about principles, it has already been established that the labor does not have any, so the ball is in the noalitions court to prove that they do.

SM,

Did you happen to catch Thomson's speech today?

Any comments?

I only caught the last half.

From what I saw was a man feebly trying to pick holes in the FWA report, and claiming that he was set up. Too afraid to take responsibility for his own actions, which put him where he is today.

I feel sorry for his wife being married to such a louse, but as I saw him lying again with new stories contradicting his old ones, I felt that he deserved everything he gets.

SM,

Interesting that you conclude that the presumption of innocence isn't a right to be broadly afforded. I hope you're never in a position to require that particular cornerstone of justice if that is now the prevailing and accepted attitude in our ever changing society.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3979060.html

Poirot,

The assumption of innocence is not a right broadly afforded. It is a term applicable only to criminal trials where proof is required beyond a reasonable doubt.

Civil cases have no such assumption, and the requirement is the balance of evidence. For example, in a civil case the word of one man against another is not considered sufficient evidence for a case, however, one man's word with corroborating evidence such as emails, texts, photos, etc is.

What Thomson has against him would have had him fired in a heart beat from any reputable employer years ago. That Labor is far from reputable is the only thing saving him.

What Thomson has against him hasn't been tested in a court of law.

He may be guilty or he may have been stitched up. There are anomalies peppered right through the whole scenario.

What "is" clear is your idea of a "fair trial"

With Jackson's partener at fair work AU. The whole script is tainted.
It took the noalition 4 hrs to label Thompson Guilty on a 1000 page report.
How do you explain Thompson's where-abouts at some of the dates in question.
Even sim cards can be programmed.
Documents were present at hsc at time of investigation, all of Thompson's expenditure was accounted for. Are they still there now.
Video footage has to be kept for 6 years, in vic. Police are now finding them.
With the amount of discussion and guilty labeling going on, i doubt if any court will touch it, Let alone charges being laid.
Why have the noalition taken on themselves to find this man guilty, without any charges. IT's clear cut to Abbott and co, but not the police. Where is the corruption.

SM,

Are you saying that this is how we should conduct the affairs of parliament? That from this point on it's acceptable for senior members of the federal opposition to don the robes of judge and jury? That the media should act as assistants in witch hunts? That posses bearing rhetorical burning torches should be the norm in parliament?

We all know that in daily affairs, the adage "it's not what you know, it's who you know" rules - that's why we have recourse to courts of law and the rule of law....something you seem to regard as superfluous.

Something smells to high heaven - and it's not necessarily Thomson.

Dear Poirot,

I fully agree with you. I didn't watch Thomson's speech
in Parliament - I merely saw the few glimpses shown on the
news. However, as I've stated all along - due process
should be allowed to take place - (no matter how long it takes)
and the truth will eventually come out.

Making pre-judgements and attacks for political
scoring as the Opposition has done - is shameful and cringe-worthy
and should make all of us question the capabilities of those
doing it - not only as our possible political leaders, but as
members of our parliament. Our politics today - has stooped to
an all time low. And this thread examplifies that.

Michael Lawler is vice president of FWA. Abbott appointed him to something 9 years ago. Is he Liberal, has abbott had contact with him during this process.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/how-the-hsu-tangled-jackson-lawler-and-thomson-with-abbott/

Whiffier and whiffier.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/the-jackson-and-lawler-hsu-tangle-part-two/

Part two.

Poirot,

Are you that naive or just ignorant. How many disciplinary hearings in a work place assume that a person is innocent until found guilty in a criminal court? Don't be ridiculous.

For example, if the HSU does not have clearly defined procedures with regards credit card expenditure, and if the criminal court clearly accepted that Thomson had spent the money on prostitutes and signed off this as work expenses, it would be difficult to find him guilty of a crime, no matter how guilty he was of the deed. However, in a civil case or disciplinary, he could be summarily dismissed and successfully sued for damages.

The evidence against Thomson is clear and damaging, and only a handful of delusional labor die hards swallow the twaddle that Thomson is dishing up with regards the 100 odd charges against him in the FWA report. The parliament has the procedures to rid itself of rogues and crooks such as Thomson and can do so as would any public or private organisation.

Finally, as I recall, the FWA is a labor created organisation stocked mostly with ex union officials, and the threadbare and convoluted conspiracy theory trying to link Jackson and Abbott is laughable. I have seen better "proofs" that 911 was a CIA plot. Poirot, I would have thought you more circumspect that to attach your credibility to such tripe.

SM,

On the contrary, I have an open and questioning mind on this issue.

It would appear, however, that the meaning and application of "circumspection" is entirely lost on someone such as yourself who has an axe to grind.

Poirot

did u see Elvis today?

runner,

No, but then I don't believe that people rise from the dead.

Nevertheless, I'm rather thrilled that you managed to spell my name right....and you didn't tag me with a vile epithet.

Things are looking up - keep up the good work.

Poirot,

"an open and questioning mind" absolute bollocks!

All that smear article was trying to do was to claim that because Jackson's partner (appointed by Labor to FWA) had some tenuous acquaintance with Abbott, that Jackson as a senior member of the HSU was secretly trying to destroy the unions and Labor. Puleez!

The alternative story is that Jackson could no longer bear the corruption and cover ups within the union and Labor movement. She has clearly little to gain from this stance and has faced a sustained attack from all in the unions for opening the can of worms, and almost certainly will lose her job for it. Unless of course you believe that she made it all up and is on the coalition's payroll?

Simply posting that fantastical drivel shows that you clearly have an axe to grind and think everyone else is stupid. That runner thinks you are a joke is telling.

Rotten to the core, and has coalition fingerprints all over it.
Sounds like something worth the media chasing.
Lawler and his friend Abbott.
Jackson and her friend Lawler.
Jackson and Jackson.
This sounds more like a set up every day.

The choice for Oakeshott and Windsor is clear. They can protect Thomson and save Labor or lose all moral authority when they next face their electorate.

Poirot

'No, but then I don't believe that people rise from the dead. '

So you were obviously making it up in a previous post when you insisted you wanted to know His views. Obviously like the innocent Thomson you have made in your mind you have also made up a dead Jesus who is not represented in Scripture. Why do you keep pretending?

Dear runner,

Here's a few pointers to help you win an argument.

1) Always argue in a logical manner.
2) Never sound too dogmatic.
3) Always know your topic.
4) Remain calm at all times.
5) Don't stoop to personal insults.
6) No one likes or supports an abusive,
illogical or weak debater.

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill
not easily acquired - however sound reasoning will
conquer unreasonable generalisations every time.

Hope this helps.

runner,

Being interested in the views attributed to Jesus doesn't necessitate my believing that a body extinct of life is capable of spontaneously regaining it.

SM,

You do get rather hot under the collar when someone questions the sanctity of Liberal politicians. Sorry about that but this whole thing has a sort of Godwin Grechy feel about it - same with Pyne and Slipper.
But then, who knows what machinations ensue in such power plays?

Anyway, since you seem to think that Liberal politicians are above all that, I'll leave you in the warm embrace of runner who appears to have become your political credibility barometer du jour...

Poirot,

Grasping at straws again. Want to buy a bridge perhaps?

Lexi,

Try following your own debating rules.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I always do.
You should try it some time.
Or do you have to ask for permission first?

SM,

Are you offering to sell me a bridge?

I think that says more about you than it does about me.

Do you mind if I dig around a bit and inspect your bridge (is it suitable for Volvos?). How about I let Chris Uhlmann ask it a question?

Chris Uhlmann: Are you aware of any union officials before Mr Thomson being accused of consorting with prostitutes?

Kathy Jackson: No

(Her ex-husband, Jeff Jackson was the target of exactly the same type of allegations in 2009) - short memory?

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/craig-thomson-under-the-rain/

She has got a story to tell, probably get three versions before the real one,Like the Volvo. I would say her members are not aware of the Volvo either, just like her.
I wonder if she knows the whereabouts of her partner.
Thomson made them to accountable, which went against the grain.
There needs more widespread investigation, before there can be a lynching.

Lexi

'The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill
not easily acquired - however sound reasoning will
conquer unreasonable generalisations every time. '

Your support of this illegimate corrupt Government kind of makes your sermonising a bit weak.

One piece of hard evidence and the whole thing will end up in the bin.

Dear runner,

Thank You for proving my point once again.

As I stated earlier - sound reasoning will conquer
unreasonable generalisations every time. You should
really take notice of my suggestions to you in that
earlier post - always argue in a logical manner
as no one likes or supports an abusive, illogical
or weak debater. As for the thomson case - I refer you
to the following link:

http://newmatilda.com/2012/05/22/thomson-scandal-future-oz-politics

It summs up rather well the political mess that we're all
currently seeing.

true to form Lexi you find a link to confirm what you want to hear instead of seeking the truth. You prove my point nicely.