SM,

If it's all so cut and dried, why hasn't Thomson been charged with...something...anything?

Are you honestly telling me that there's not a very foul smell emanating from this "whole" affair?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-26/jacksons-at-centre-of-hsu-allegations/4093190

And why do completely dismiss the pertinence of KPMG's findings that the FWA investigation was significantly flawed?

Bottom line - whether or not Thomson is guilty is something yet to be determined.

You display bad form in your recent rhetoric.

Belly,

Over the years you have never ceased in attacking me personally. I care not a jot.

Because I consider carefully what I write, and my opinions have strong foundations on the facts, articles or my personal qualifications in engineering, economics, and to some extent Law. Your rambling, and factually devoid personal attacks often don't warrant the effort to reply.

I enjoy engaging with those that motivate their opinions and know what they are talking about, what irritates me is when idiots confuse their opinions with the facts. The most recent example is the assertion that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" applies in any way outside a criminal court.

Another irritant is those who have not progressed intellectually past kindergarten. Mr wiggles this means you.

SM,

Perhaps you should cut the holier-than-thou, conservatively couched "....my opinions have strong foundations in fact..." blather.

Anyone with a modicum of regard for fair dealings and civilised discourse would not indulge in rhetoric like this:

"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 STD's, and dump his weasel backside while he still has a pot to piss in."

You're splashing around in the gutter.

In the realm of the kangaroo court you are guilty until proven innocent in a court of law.
That sounds about right for a noalition door stop.
The FWA was out of date to start with, 2 year limitations,and FWA took three of them.
Thomsons lawyers have warned about bad mouthing their client.

SM I doubt your qualifications.
Law for sure, a clerk would understand the difference between JUDICIARY, and your red herring.
In the end I admit I go for you.
But want you to know, it is because unlike most who agree with my view of you, I tell you.
Grim? true but history rarely lets us write our own version of it.

The weasel has popped.

>> Another irritant is those who have not progressed intellectually past kindergarten. Mr wiggles this means you. <<

'sugar daddy'