I suppose my unscrupulous habit of checking my facts before I post puts me at an unfair advantage. I, however, do intend to continue with this unethical practice.

I also notice that when the personal attacks start, the left whingers have exhausted their intellectual capital. With some it happens earlier than with others. (Mr wiggles)

>> I also notice that when the personal attacks start, the left whingers have exhausted their intellectual capital. With some it happens earlier than with others. (Mr wiggles) <<

That from a man who sets the tone of the thread with this:

>> If there is a scorecard of who came out better yesterday, Juliar came out with egg on her face, looking sleazy and bitter. <<

S'pose that makes SM a 'real right whinger'

Mr Wiggles,

Do you have a point?

SM,

You're the one who's swaggering about on this thread telling us how diabolically clever you are - that you believe you can impugn, with apparent impunity, Craig Thomson based on a flawed investigation and without a court ruling.

You're the one who has crafted this discussion into a measure of your personal prowess.

On the contrary, it appears to me that you're the type who will ignore they myriad indications, shining like beacons, that this whole affair is significantly compromised. Who believes that if enough dirt is piled on someone sans actual judicial examination, that it's all well and good to shovel on some more - it doesn't actually matter whether they're guilty or innocent, what matters is the partisan nature of your conclusions.

Poirot,

After the stream of ad hominem attacks on me and my posts generally fueled by ignorance e.g. "do nothing to engender rational dialogue", I felt the need to show that I at least follow some intellectual rigour before posting. If this is swaggering, then so be it. Your lack of "swagger" is blindingly obvious.

If you had bothered to read the KPMG report, it indicates that the FWA report after 3 years has clearly not covered the scope it tasked to do (i.e. examine all the irregularities in the HSU) in the detail expected. There were gaps in leads not being followed, or people questioned.

However, it was also clear in that the evidence that was collected was sound, and found no fault with the conclusions. There was nothing to exonerate Thomson.

The myriad beacons to which you refer are figments of your imagination.

How can it be sound, with a FWA member being the team mate of the female in charge of the said union.
That has got to be an irregularity, to say the least. The door was wide open for corruption.
So how can the evidence be said to be sound, and who said so.
So why was the FWA rushed into releasing an inquiry that was incomplete.
It could be that the incomplete investigation is where the blame lies.
It's a taste test with a half cooked corruption pie.