Mr Wiggles (BM)

I am fully aware of the law, as it appears that you are not. The worst I could be accused of is Libel, which would be very difficult for Thomson to prove. (though I would love him to try!)

Mr wiggles it would also appear that your understanding of English is limited, please look up the definition of unsubstantiated. My assertion is not yet proven beyond reasonable doubt, but is far, far from unsubstantiated.

Thomson is a Crook and is soon to be bankrupt and on the street. His wife should take note of the dozen or so hookers he has slept with and get checked for STDs, and dump his weasel backside while he still has a pot to piss in.

Wow - SM,

I hope you're not disseminating a view on the due process of law in an enlightened society.

Imagine if someone made allegations against your good self - and then an investigation was undertaken that lasted years by a statutory body that has as one of its senior members the partner of the person who is your chief accuser. Imagine then that an investigation of that investigation found that it was flawed, as in:

"The report by accounting firm KPMG says Fair Work Australia was not experienced in the conduct of investigations, was deficient in its planning, management and execution of the investigation, and that there were no qualified or experienced investigators involved."

Further to that, imagine posters on social media websites going around declaring you a "crook" resting on their own bias and relying on allegation and innuendo from partisan sources to reach their conclusion - untried in a court of law.

I imagine you'd think that that scenario flew in the face of what you believed was fairness under the laws and conduct of our society

...in fact, it's more akin to gutter conduct, IMO

I can hear SM now in my mind FAIRNESS! WHAT LEFTY ROT!
LAW!WHO CARES ! unless its one of ours.
Say something controversial SM,we may get this thread to 200!

Poirot et al,

Before loosely attaching your own understanding to the term sub-judice please look at a legal definition and if you can point out anywhere that I have strayed:

http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_03.html

He is free to sue me for defamation, but considering the Labor party had to shell out $350 000 for his legal fees and payment to Fairfax

I am basing this on the forensic evidence linking his use of the credit card to hiring prostitutes on 12 separate occasions plus plenty more, and If I had this much evidence against me I would plead guilty and call it quits. Dragging out the court case with such overwhelming evidence is not likely to lead to a reduced sentence.

I repeat Thomson is a crook upon which Labor relies.

So, SM, what you're saying is that Mr Thomson is free to sue you for defamation...blah, blah, blah...

And you hold your conduct in repeatedly referring to a man not tried before a court on these issues as a "crook"......

- and you seem proud of that fact!

Makes me wonder why we bother with a process of law at all, with your kind of reasoning.

But we do bother with it - and attitudes like yours remind us why it's such a valuable principle.

So SM says:

>> Thomson is a Crook and is soon to be bankrupt and on the street.

His wife should take note of the dozen or so hookers he has slept with and get checked for STDs, and dump his weasel backside while he still has a pot to piss in. <<

He is right in one respect; Graham Young is technically the publisher of this vile vomit emanating from SM's 'kangaroo court'.