What will be interesting will be to see if the government or the labour
party pay his legal fees this time around.
Anyone know what the statute of limitations is on civil action embezzlement ?
Perhaps that is why the police have not acted.
It might be shorter on criminal actions.

If so you now know why the investigation took so long.

Oh BM you delicate flower, Not used to some robust vernacular?

I shall phrase it thus:

Mrs Thompson, having apprised herself of her husband's frequent partaking of entertainment of the horizontal variety with ladies proficient in this profession, should avail herself of the appropriate medical advice to ensure her health is not at risk from the unwanted consequences sometimes contracted from these activities.

Furthermore, given her husband's future economic outlook and opprobrium ,she should separate herself both physically and financially from him before she shares in his likely insolvency.

Is this better?

Low SM, Billy Macky Sneddon died on the job, and he was far from alone.
See the Weasel backed away in Indonesia, did not have the Jam Tart to say what he planed!
PS
Write any of those e mails?

You still don't get it, do you 'shadow'?

Neither you, nor I, let alone Mrs Thompson or indeed the Court, knows the guilt or innocence of Craig Thompson in these matters.

In fact, law abiding people in our society believe in the notion of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Except you, obviously.

You insinuate and assert some vile and vociferous things to Craig Thompson (and by extension 'slap it on' his wife and family) before it has even gone to court.

Your last flowery post just demonstrates to all who are watching that you haven't got a clue about what the issues really are.

You're spewing of vomitus does nothing to engender rational dialogue - it belongs in the gutter with others of your shadowy ilk.

Alan Jones and Tony Abbott must be taking notes.

BM,

Your knowledge of the law and the legal process is woeful.

"The presumption of innocence, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a CRIMINAL trial.

This does not apply to civil trials (which Thompson is presently facing)

In civil trials and in other matters people are given the benefit of the doubt, and are not assumed to have offended unless there is sufficient to believe otherwise.

In this case there is a huge volume of evidence, 12 separate cases where CT's card was used to procure prostitutes, and dozens of other cases of corrupt activities. The threshold required for reasonable conclusion of crookery has been buried under the volumes of misdeeds over the years.

While I understand your political leanings drive your desire to remain wide eyed and naive, but please don't assume that the rest of us are that stupid.

Considering the numerous and completely unsubstantiated accusations you level at Abbott and the Coalition you are hardly in any position to pontificate.

As for Mrs Thompson, I really feel sorry for her, she has children by this crook, and faces a very bleak future

SM,

Link please to "charges" preferred against Craig Thomson or court proceedings where he has been found guilty.

Are you referring to the credit card imprint that spelled his name "Thompson"?

You're making the same mistake - it's Mr "Thomson" and Mrs "Thomson".
Although I suspect a legitimate credit card wouldn't contain such an error.

You've reached the threshold required for a reasonable conclusion of bias.

I "used" to grant you some integrity, SM.