Poirot,

I bet that Graham Young got plenty of requests to delete my comment, however, I carefully chose my words to convey my contempt and revulsion for this sordid little man whilst remaining well within the facts and requirements of decency and conduct for this site.

Since you also objected to the less robust prose I used, I assume that it was the content that offended you. Please indicate which of the following concepts is offensive and is completely unfounded:

1 Thomson is corrupt
2 Thomson has slept with prostitutes
3 The fines and legal action Thomson is facing is very likely to bankrupt him.
4 Thomson's intercouse with multiple partners is health risk to his wife. (I am surprised that you are sexist enough to suggest that Mrs Thomson to risk her health in order to stand by her husband.)
5 As a consequence of the above Mrs T would be well advised to get a divorce settlement while there is any money to be had.

Or in the face of the FWA findings, the 65 civil charges, and the pending criminal charges, are you seriously proposing that Mr T should be treated as pure as the driven snow.

As for Thomson's puffing that he will sue anyone that claims he slept with prostitutes, this is laughable considering that he tried this against Fairfax and lost with costs, and big sister had to bail him out to the tune of $150 000.

SM is not only a lawyer he is a doctor as well. When and if Thomson is found guilty, until then he will remain innocent of anything.
I would be careful of such accusations, in the light of a case that will be in court.
We try evidence and Thomson will get a chance to plead.
The noalition had him sentenced on the bases of a one sided enquiry. Evidence by word of mouth is not good enough to convict anyone.
I presume in 18 months we will now the outcome.

I'm supposing that Graham didn't receive any requests for your comment to be deleted - doesn't happen as often as you might suppose.

I'll leave you to it, SM...in your snug little world of flawed investigations that apparently pass with some people for integrity.

Should be interesting when it all comes out in the wash.

Shadow Minister, willing to bet no one asked for it to be removed.
I have my issues with you, left a few times over you, other have too.
But in the end I have no pretensions, you are far better educated than me, but it is wasted on you.
You display here, therefore in your real life, a self confidence bordering on, apart from miss placed, massive self deception.
Bloke it comes over every time you mount your hight horse and tell us how good you are.
I truly respect GY, understand his politics is far closer to yours than mine.
But after your grubby inflammatory post, one that saw me insult you, I can do better.
You verbally infer GY is on your side.
IF I got barred for life, my respect for you remains as YOU PLANTED IT, NON-EXISTANT.

1 Thomson is corrupt

I assume so, my personal opinion. There is a hell of a lot of smoke for sure, but the investigation was undertaken by people with a conflict of interest.

2 Thomson has slept with prostitutes

It sounds pretty likely, weren't there transactions on his credit card? It could be an elaborate set up, but based on the volume of evidence it is unlikely.

3 The fines and legal action Thomson is facing is very likely to bankrupt him.

Who knows. Perhaps the Labor party will foot the bill by some mechanism.

4 Thomson's intercouse with multiple partners is health risk to his wife. (I am surprised that you are sexist enough to suggest that Mrs Thomson to risk her health in order to stand by her husband.)

This is a baseless assertion as to whether he used a barrier method contraception at the alleged visits to prostitutes. Who knows, he may have cried on their shoulder about his impotence:-) As to 'sexist enough', I don't believe anyone suggested a course of action for the wife?

5 As a consequence of the above Mrs T would be well advised to get a divorce settlement while there is any money to be had.

I find it hard to advise anyone on a tactical divorce. Why do you assume they cant or don't want to sort out any marital conflict? How well do you know the couple?

[Deleted for abuse.]