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.