Very close to the matter. SM says nothing in the FWA report was done correctly, that didn't matter to them when when they were screening guilty. SM supposedly read the report and his comments were Thompson was a clean cut liar and corrupt person. The same with Slipper and Gillard.
There is a definite pattern here, i think it is guilty until proven innocent, why waste money on a trial, election now. All to date is a dismal failure, Abbotts type of opposition is certainly one for the books. It's a pity he doesn't know anything about politics.

Wobbles,

"Lawler and his family are consider “Liberal Royalty” and he is hardly an independent observer."

Rubbish. Just making things up doesn't make things better.

579

You too. Don't ascribe things to me that I neither said nor meant.

"SM says nothing in the FWA report was done correctly," No I didn't. Not even close. This is called lying.

SM,

As I recall, your main complaint against the FWA was that it took too long to reach the 'obvious" conclusion - and that, in your opinion, was likely due to interference from Labor.

Your own conclusion of Thomson's guilt rests on your own bias. Do you have a similar opinion regarding the Jackson allegations, or is this where your ethic regarding presumed innocence kicks in?

Poirot,

My "bias" against Thomson is based on evidence posted on the net of Thomson's credit card being used to pay for prostitutes accompanied with photo copies of his signature (confirmed as his) and drivers licence. To further corroborate this is phone calls from his mobile and hotel room to the brothel at the time.

Being of sound mind I struggle to see how all of these could be forged. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

As for Kathy Jackson, I notice your hypocrisy (and other from the left), in fervently supporting other whistle blowers, but when one exposes someone from Labor they are vigorously attacked.

If KJ has abused her position, then she should be treated appropriately. As most of these "allegations" come from within the HSU from those hurt by the scrutiny from her actions, (for which little to no details have been released), I am not going to make a call either way.

For example "What (the union charges) demonstrate is that she has been grossly negligent in her role as national secretary," Mr Brown said. "Secondly, she has been reckless by exposing the union to financial and legal liability."

So exposing and stopping fraud in the unions is "grossly negligent"?

SM,

That would be the driver's license spelled "Thompson"?

The driver's license was in the name of Thomson, the credit card was in the name of Thompson.

The photo and signature are his on the license. PS I once had a company card that misspelt my name, and used it while a replacement was sent, as applied for by the institution not the individual, and the scrutiny is not as strict.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2ue-Craig_Thompson1.jpg