"JULIA Gillard's high-stakes election strategy has been rocked by ex-Labor MP Craig Thomson's arrest on 149 fraud charges, including allegedly using union funds to pay for prostitutes. The charges follow an investigation by Victorian fraud squad detectives in relation to claims Mr Thomson allegedly spent more than $7000 of union monies on escort services."

The dishonesty and outright fraud of Gillard's MPs and ex ALP members has been a running sore for Labor for more than a year, and the long awaited arrest of Thomson has driven another nail in Juliar's election chances. Amongst the many questions is whether the unprecedented election call was precipitated by Thomson's arrest.

The kangaroo court is now in session, residing is chief magistrate SM.
How many times has Thomson go to be found guilty without a court being involved.

Well here we go, SM...I wonder if all this is going to stick to your script?

That's an awful lot of charges - I wonder, in that case, why it took so long to charge him?

Still, charged he is...apparently one of the long line of charges is that he used union funds to buy himself an ice-cream.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-01/thomson-strip-searched-by-police-lawyer-says/4494808

He, he, he, he! Ah Poirot, this from his lawyer and the ABC? He, he, he, he!

You’re so funny. You should change your name to Parrot, “Pieces of Eight, Pieces of Eight, Arrrgggrrr”!

Barrel meet bottom, bottom meet barrel.

Actually your post gave me a laugh (and made my moustaches dishevelled!)

Still it's coming from the bloke who goes by the moniker "spindoc".

It has stated that now that an election date has been set by the GG
no byelection can be held.
So even if a member is gaoled and the seat is vacant a new member
could not be elected until the general election date.
So now you know why we are having such a long campaign.

Also a member cannot be called to court during house sittings and five
days previously. So nothing will affect the operation of parliament.

Why look for negativity in the election announcement?
Afterall this announcement removes the uncertainty and
puts a clear timetable in front of everyone.

But then we must remember this is an election year -
and "anything goes."

Obviously, some will be upset that it ensures the
government will serve a full term of 3 years.
(So much for the belief held by some that Julia's minority
government wouldn't last).

Another added bonus is of course of allowing the Opposition
more opportunities to say something silly and a long,
relentless campaign also plays well to Julia Gillard's
personal strengths of discipline and tenacity.

Much is now going to be made of Mr Thompson's
arrest by the Opposition. More slurs on the PM's character
and "judgement." And the ethos of "innocent until proven
guilty," will remain on the backburner.

Predictable times ahead.

579 and Parrot,

1 - The civil court has been involved for some time, now the criminal court is involved.
2 - If your question is why has it taken so long, maybe you should ask Juliar why her FWA took so long and why Labor paid $350 000 of his legal fees to shield the weasel from the law.
3 - The one charge the weasel's lawyer uses is supposedly for ice cream, firstly is that what is was really for? and secondly why has he been so quiet on the other 149?

Juliar claimed that Labor was the party of conviction, now we get to see how right she was.

Politics is a dirty game, and unsurprisingly a major party will do what it takes to stay in power.

Let's just hope the long 2013 election campaign can bring much greater attention to the serious issues facing this country.

Dear Chris,

And the Opposition will do whatever it takes to GET
into power!

You're right about politics.

Let's hope that the discussion of policies (and costings)
will appear somewhere on the agenda prior to the
election so that people can make informed decisions about
their choices.

SM,

Actually I think you're probably right about the election call and its connection to Thomson's charging.

"...supposedly for an ice-cream. Firstly is that what it was really for..."

I think Thomson's lawyer was referring to the fact that someone had trawled through and discovered something as inconsequential as the purchase of an ice-cream - as in anything to trump the charges into the overwhelming figure they are would suffice.

I hope you're not suggesting that the cost of an ice-cream would purchase anything really diabolical. I mean your surmising "...Is that what it was really for..." is reminiscent of Maxwell Smart : )

Madcow Sinister,

Do you think its right that we should play with each others' monikers?

(You referred to great Hercule as "Parrot" - without inserting humorous pirate banter)

Just asking : )

According to Police reports their local printer failed just before the court appearance and they couldn’t print out all the charges so they just ran with one charge as an interim.

It was probably the ice cream charge. I think the Police are having some fun with our Craig. They’ve been jerked around by him for too long, what does Craig expect?

All your trivia stuff nicely deflects from the fact that CT has been charged with civil and criminal crimes. These allegations reflect badly on the trade union movement, the ALP, the caucus and our government, not to mention the poor sods that pay good money for union membership.

I guess we would expect that your perspective is less about the alleged crimes and the victims and more about preserving your respect for the alleged perpetrators. This alone tells us much about you, shame on you.

Can’t wait to hear the list of charges from the NSW Police investigation, more ice cream Craig?

SM,

I know you'll enjoy this (it will give you the opportunity to point out how uneducated and ignorant is anybody who who is not pre-programmed and who ventures to read comment from sources other than MSM)

However, it's an interesting analysis of yesterday's events....

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/jacksonville-38-the-odd-and-illegal-arrest-of-craig-thomson/

'The dishonesty and outright fraud of Gillard's MPs and ex ALP members has been a running sore for Labor for more than a year '

try a couple of decades.

Shame on who, spindoc?

Craig Thomson hasn't "jerked" anybody around.

If they had the evidence they could have charged him "whenever".

That's a no-brainer.

Of course, it takes a bit of organising to treat us all to an "opening night showstopper"...one has to have all the media in place when the headliners saunter up the red carpet.

Nothing like a well-staged, over-the-top- arrest to keep the public titillated.

Lexi, i was refering to both major parties.

I do think the election will be much closer than betting odds suggest.

Labor will exploit cuts to social welfare spending. This will have an impact.

As Vic polls show, does not take Labor long to reverse its electoral fortunes in these tough times

Poirot, I started to read the link you sent but after the first couple of untruths I stopped.
The olice offered Thompson for him to present in Melbourne but he refused.
The NSW police offered him to do the same in NSW, but he declined, and
they did that to avoid the media circus.

He was not stripped by the police but by Corrective services officers
who do that for everyone taken into custody.
You really do need to vet first what you give as a reference.
There maybe further errors, but I just gave up at that point.

Monsieur Poirot,

I think if you could read what is written rather then responding to the emotion you feel, your comprehension might improve.

The shame on you comment is because you are hell bent on defending the perpetrator and care not about the victims. Unless you tell us differently?

You say “Craig Thomson hasn't "jerked" anybody around”. Here you go again. The Vic police concluded their investigation before Christmas and the Victorian DPP signed off on the arrest warrant in December. CT was offered the option by the Vic Police of a voluntary and private attendance before Christmas. Craig declined and was consequently arrested by two Victoria police officers and two from NSW (their jurisdiction)

You say “If they had the evidence they could have charged him whenever". No monsieur detective, you are, how shall we say, wrong again. “Whenever”? I seeenk is no a police terminology non? Investigate, validate, DPP, arrest then prosecute. Qui? Non?

Just in the interests of balance, could you give us your opinion rather than that of Craig’s defence lawyer, it might help your cred?

As you say it is a “no brainer”, we agree with you!

Dear Chris,

Political commentators told us last year that
it was going to get nasty during this election
year. The Opposition will have to come
up with something more than simply telling us what's
wrong with the government, the PM's character,
and what the government has done wrong, if they
want to be taken seriously.

Interesting times ahead.

spindoc,

If the Victorian DPP signed off on an arrest warrant in December - and the Vic police offered Thomson a voluntary and private attendance - in December - which may or may not mean an interview or an arrest....if he declined, why has it taken until the end of January and a huge dramatic production (replete with waiting media before the event) to get around to arresting him?

Why didn't they just toodle up and arrest him when he first declined?

Really, I'm curious.

So the nomination of an election date was some sort of Gillard grand master plan?

The Libs say Gillard named the election date because she knew Thomson was going to be arrested.

Then they say her political campaign has run off the rails because he was arrested.

They can”t have it both ways. So which is it?

It seems to me that some members of the media knew at least the night before - Steve Lewis in particular - the MC of the Abbott Press Conference and the media source for both the Slipper and Thomson campaigns.

Ashbygate has been revealed to have been a political stitch-up as will many factors surrounding Thomson that mysteriously have not been published in the mainstream media, but will trickle out in the months ahead.

Then people like Brough, Pyne, Bishop, Brandis (and Abbott) will have some questions of their own to answer.

Bazz got it 100% right on the very first page of this thread.

Juliar has lied to us again. She gave all sorts of lying reasons as to why, at this stage, she specifically named the election date.

As Bazz stated, what she did NOT tell us, openly and honestly, was the real reason. The real reason is, if any member of parliament between now and the already called election is convicted of any criminal offence, then no by election is allowed until the already announced election date in September.

Juliar has lied to Australia AGAIN.

Juliar lies, lies and lies, has nearly bankrupted Australia, has no credibility whatsoever and possesses the biggest lying azz in parliament.

Juliar = liar.

Parrot,

You did manage to get it wrong again. The author of the independant did not actually read the link upon which he relied to declare Thomson's arrest "illegal". The immunity to arrest or requirement to attend court applies to civil cases only, not criminal.

As for the arrest of the weasel, it is common for those about to be arrested for non violent crimes to be offerred the opportunity to present themselves for arrest, especially across state lines. After a set period if this is not taken up, an arrest warrant will be issued. There have been rumours for weeks about the impending arrest of the weasel. It is unlikely that Juliar did not know that an arrest was imminent, even if she did not know when.

Labor has consistently made announcements at strategic times, such as the broken surplus promise just before christmas. It is unlikely that the election announcement was a coincidence.

This sums it up:

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/01/31/1226566/243409-130201-nicholson.jpg

I am looking forward to 8 months of criminal procedings against several senior ALP members.

You won't get a result anytime this year. Careful Dell, you can get penalized for to much of that.
The media knew all about it so it suspects so did Abbott.
The police seem to have an agenda of their own, for some reason.
Twice they have been to see Thomson and the media have been the first there.
All Abbott wanted was an election with no policy, sounds like Julia has stumped him again.

Shadow Minister, good post. They can't argue against your logic.

Poirot, for goodness sake stop panicking.
The police were asked why they did not act till now and the reason
they gave was that members of the squad were on annual leave.
They probably try and take leave during the legal holidays anyway.
Another possibility is that if he surrended himself they would not
need to get extradition warrants sworn out and it would have needed
more time and everyone was disappearing on holidays.

It appears that it was known several days previously in Canberra that
an arrest was imminent, maybe Craig Thompson told someone in Canberra,
the PM or perhaps the speaker, who is the official who should be notified.
A cleaner in Canberra rang up a station and said she heard it a few
days earlier. She said people talk and never notice the cleaner.
It used to be the same with lift drivers.

It seems too much of a coincidence that the PM called the longest
campaign by a long way in history and the arrest and the need to
prevent a bielection. You can accept the PM's word she did not know
it was coming soon, but the cats & dogs in the street will not believe it.

Despite the remarks of some politicians
every Australian is entitled to the due
process of the law and being considered
to be innocent until proven guilty -
even a Member of Parliament.

I can't help wondering what effect all this
is having on Craig Thomson's wife and family?

Hi Poirot,

You say you are “curious” about the timing of the arrest of Craig Thomson.

Curious, because firstly you were not curious enough to find out what was going on, you seem to have been the last one to know (except for Gillard)?

Curious also because you actually don’t want to know the “ins and outs” of police processes, interstate travel approvals, extradition warrants, state jurisdiction sanctions by magistrates and DPP approvals, you just want to find a deep and meaningful explanation that suits your political disposition and if you can’t get it you challenge “what is” or will invent an alternative. This is called obsessive fixation.

I evidence this by your pursuit of the “answer” that nobody else seems to care about. That you want to defend the perpetrator, the system that produced him and the political environment that protects him. You also refuse in each and every post, to acknowledge the victims because in your view, they are less important than your ideology, now that IS curious.

Would you take this position if a burglar had ransacked your house, taken your prized possessions and disposed of them to a fence? No because you would be the “victim”. You demonstrate a disturbing lack of empathy but demand it from others, you are all about “self”. You just want to satisfy that gnawing uncertainty that permeates your every waking moment and to protect yourself from the reality that so offends you.

You have been asked multiple times to substantiate your perspective but don’t. You duck and weave, slide down the side, deliberately obfuscate and in the end take your wickets home. You sound increasingly like you came from the same mold as Gillard, you never face a question head on and, like Gillard, when someone asks you what time it is, you answer “it’s a large green one with a zipper down the side”.

When will you step out from behind shutting down "reality testing", rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism, denial of rationalization or justification, to embrace only your wishful thinking

SM(irky)

I know your penchant to think you're oh-so-witty by employing the term, "Juliar" etc....and looky there, I see you've found a new fan in the irrepressible and stylish, Dell....seems fitting somehow : )

Lexi,

Don't for a minute think SM(ug) gives two hoots about the presumption of innocence. Why he will go to incredible lengths to contort the situation into something which (apparently) does not merit the presumption of innocence....and he will undertake to further smear the accused while engaging in his gymnastics.

Poirot, what don't you understand about the fact that a by election CAN'T he held before the Federal election in September? Do you not understand the connection between that and the Craig Thomson affair? Probably not.

Therefore, I can't expect you to comprehend precisely why Juliar set the September election date in January. I can't expect you to understand why Juliar lied (again) to Australia, regarding the reasons why she set that date.

Juliar = a liar.

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for that.

However, our political conversation needs to shift away
from the mass, infantile finger-pointing that
now pervades it.

We need to allow due process to take place.

Accounts in the media are being disputed.
Craig Thomson's lawyer for example, has stated
quite clearly that:

"We were never told that my client was about to
be arrested and we were NOT invited to take him down
to surrender himself."

It seems that the Police Chief was given wrong
information. And of course certain people lap it up.

Oh dear.

Who cares about Thompson or even Slipper. Both parties have duds and perhaps sleazy characters.

Let's get on with deciding who is best to govern.

Sinse when did SM ever have logic. His only logic is to assassinate someone before anyone else can.
Turnbull was supposed to be the one facing an election, not the bumbling Abbott. A week or less is all it will take, for Abbott to blunder himself, he has already made a stupid statement saying his front bench won't change.
Abbott may want Pell on the front bench.

THE Gillard Government is living "under a dreadful ethical pall'' every time it accepts Craig Thomson's vote, federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says.
The Coalition is demanding the government refuse to accept Thomson's vote, after the former Labor member turned independent was arrested.
Thomson was arrested on Thursday at his electorate office at Tuggerah, on the NSW central coast, and charged with 149 fraud offences.
One offence listed on the charge sheet alleges he used a credit card to avoid paying a debt of $330 to Sydney escort service Aboutoun Catering for sexual services in February 2003.
Mr Abbott said the Coalition had refused Thomson's vote ever since Fair Work Australia handed down the "very serious'' findings into his alleged misconduct.
He challenged the Gillard Government to refuse Thomson's vote when parliament resumes next week.

Thomson has gone beyond getting a fair trial.

Wow ! the academic hangers on brigade was awoken by Gillard's call for election. We'll see non-stop saturation mindlessness from them for the next 8 months.

Dear Individual,

Take heart.

I'm sure that you'll be able to renew
dignified and respectful dialogue with
kindred spirits who have the wisdom to
see things your way. ;)

Here's a link that's worth reading:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4495056.html

"The Coalition is demanding the government refuse to accept Thomson's vote, after the former Labor member turned independent was arrested."

And, just to demonstrate their high moral principles, the Coalition will lead by example and refuse to accept Thomson's vote! Wow! Oh lordy!

If the Coalition is so ready for an election, let's see some policies. Let's be sure the people are given full knowledge of these and their costings, from both sides. and may the best platform win.

, let's see some policies
Luciferase,
the problem with that is that people like you would not nor would want to understand & accept anything that's from the coalition.

That's true.

Mmmmm, guys. I'd like to get some of that maternity lucre to be dished out, for which I'd gladly swap the school kids bonus. But hey, it takes a ruling majority and I am but one small voice in choosing a platform for my country to follow.

C'mon Tony, put up yer dukes. Telegraph your punch in enough time for everyone's consideration.

it takes a ruling majority
Luciferase,
not with the present federal government. Why, even the AlP president Tony Sheldon had the decency & integrity to describe their true mentality on TV today.

I would like to post on behalf of the 1,000's of HSU East members and ex-member, the PSA's, porters, cleaners, laundry staff, the 20 bucks an hour people in hospitals, the ones that clean up the mess of the sick and dieing.
These are the people who have been wronged by the maggot Thompson, I make no apology for calling Thompson a maggot, as I don't make an apology for calling Williams the same. Not only did this pair, and a few others. rob low paid workers of their hard earned cash, they also stole their union protection. Now many hospital workers jobs in NSW are under attack from the Conservative O'Farrell government. People who have worked for years could loose their livelyhoods and their homes, suffer the indignity of unemployment all through the actions of a handful of maggots. If all Thompson an co were to suffer is my insult, I would say they got off very lightly.
What can I do? As a Green I expect to be a member of the campaign committee in a marginal ALP seat. I will be agitating for a 'no Labor preference' should be enough to make sure the seat falls to the Liberals. Unfortunate that may well see the people suffer 3 years of Abbottism, but I believe that would be good thing for The Greens, and after all at the end of the day its the peoples who choose.

Phillip, the worse part is the way it places suspicion on those
honest officials in all the other unions.
The question gets raised, "Is this just normal practice ?"
Somehow that needs to be answered.

see the people suffer 3 years of Abbottism,
Paul1405,
You are attempting to predict something that has been happening under Labor for too long to possibly but very unlikely to happen under a coalition.
I think & I hope you are wrong. After all your only guidance appears to be utter ignorance.

Paul

It will probably be more like 9 years when everyone realises that the hate campaign run by labor is pure bollocks.

Dear Shadow Minister,

With all due respect - hate campaign run by Labor?
You can't be serious. Who is it who seeks to be
Prime Minister by divisive scare tactics.
And now the latest move - to deny an Australian
citizen the most sacred of rights under the law
that of the presumption of innocence and a fair trial
simply for political gains, seeking to be PM by destruction.
Shame on him and shame on you!

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4495056.html

The only thing that the opposition can now do is to elect a leader that people feel they can vote for.

Mr Slipper did not rule out running on September 14 as an independent against Howard government minister Mal Brough. "Very few people on either side of the house, or in the indigenous community and, for that matter, the community generally would want to see Mal Brough returned to parliament," Mr Slipper said.

Shame on you Lexi, you said;
that of the presumption of innocence and a fair trial

Who is it that has a bill ready for parliament that removes presumption of innocence ?
Who has the bill that you have to prove your innocence ?

Try Nicola Noxon's latest bit of fascism.
Stalin would be proud of the Labour Party.

Really, how about coming into the real world.

A question for those who've been around for a while and who are busy making much of the presumption of innocence and the surrounding political issues.

Do you consider that Joh Bjelki-Peterson and Russ Hinze were innocent?

Noting that Joh was put on trial and was not convicted, Russ never faced trial.

Clearly many don't presume their innocence despite neither having been convicted of any wrongdoing.

Is the focus on the presumption of interest a deeply held belief or a matter of convenience.

So please no more lecturing on the presumptiin of innocence until both have been declared innocent.

For my part of have some views about one of them that could be considered libelous and the fact the the other gave long term support to that one raises some serious questions in my mind.

R0bert

No probs, RObert.

I'm sure if you're ever accused of something, you'll have no need for that particular tenet of our justice system.

Poirot I do believe in it but like everything it has its limits especially when combined with the hypocracy of many who as far as I can tell would have no problems declaring Joh and Russ to have been corrupt yet hide behind the presumption of innocence for Thompson.

Many people face various sorts of consequences at times based on accusations which have not been proven in a trial.

This government has made changes in the area of family law which have removed many of those protections for men accused of abuse by spouses and supporters of those changes have been quite adamant in their determination that there be no protections in place around that for the accused despite the significant personal advantage a well placed accusation can bring to outcomes.

Simple question, would you defend the presumption of innocence for Joh and Russ if you heard them being referred to as corrupt in a discussion?

I don't happen to believe that the presumption if innocence should be a presumtion only when its convenient. I strongly suspect many in this instance do treat it as a matter of convenience.

R0bert

RObert,

I agree with you. Keith Wright and Bill D'Arcy who were eventually convicted of child sex offences are examples.

It is very easy for politicians to work their considerable formal and informal power to commit serious offences for years, even where others in their own party were aware, or should have made it their business to become aware, of their criminal activities. In effect they blackmail their colleagues who would not look sideways at them if it risked rocking the boat. Of course some of their colleagues, from other parties too, might be easily blackmailed for their own indiscretions and opportunism.

Maybe such politicians reflect the will and immorality, certainly lack of principles, of a growing rump of the community. The Australian culture has changed.

I firmly believe in the presumption of innocence
and a fair trial as the right of all
Australian citizens. Politicians, making derogatory
statements that prejudge a person and take away this
right is inexcusable as they should know better. Due
process must be allowed to take place. What has happened
in the case of Craig Thomson could be legal grounds for
a mis-trial.

I was just listing to the nightly news on radio Kazakhstan, when I hear this
"It has been announced in far off Republic of Australia, (we think not near Kazakhstan, but check later) by supreme president Mr Julia Gilleyardski that he as supreme leader of all republic has made a 'captains pick' and new man Mr Craig Thompski (with name like Thompski could be from Kazakhstan, we check later) will be new top dog in Labour Party Senate in Northern Territory of Australia (also not near Kazakhstan). The supreme president said this was necessary as in the 257 year history of party, although there had been many rats and other animals in the senate from party, (this senate must be some kind of zoo, we check later) but the party had never had big skunk as Thompski in senate, so black person who got job before can "go frow a boomerang" (we check later if this frow boomerang be hostile act against Kazakhstan, if it is hostile act we tell Mr Gilleyardski we have very big bomb in Kazakhstan so you better not put boomerang thing here or we get you).
I find radio Kazakhstan very informative on politics in Australia, all most as informative as Rup's Daily Telegraph.

Gentlemen please,
For Mr. Thompson it really doesn't matter whether he is guilty or not. His days as a public figure are finished and probably his income too. That is unless Labor manage to pull off a miracle and then he no doubt will finish up as the Ambassador to the US or even the Vatican.
Regardless of whatever eventuates the stench is too great to ignore and the Australian public will require a 'cleansing'. I hope Mr Abbott has lots of Saniclor.
Personally, and I mean personally, I believe that if the conservatives do win the election they should immediately set up a Royal Commission into the socialist left.
CG

- hate campaign run by Labor?
Lexi,
that & their incompetence/ignorance is not consistent with the original Labor Doctrine, on the contrary.

'I believe that if the conservatives do win the election they should immediately set up a Royal Commission into the socialist left.

problem will be finding judges who are indoctrinated with socialist left idealogy. That is why the RC into sexual abuse ignores where it happens the most.

Lexi,

I too firmly believe in the right in court to the presumption of innocence. However, I am unaware that this right to the presumption of innocence extends out of the criminal court. It certainly does not even extend to the civil court. Labor is trying to get us to believe that these Labor crooks should be treated as pure as the driven snow until they are finally convicted and Labor has put as much distance as possible from them.

Labor of course does not extend this courtesy to members of the opposition where in their hate campaign they accuse Abbott and others of all sorts of misdeeds without a shred of evidence and on innuendo.

Of cause it's the reason she called the election so early.

If only she could tell the truth.

lexi,
If you really believe in a fair go for all, how about stopping your prejudgement of Abbott before he has had a go.

Why do you claim he will be a puppet for Pell while you say nothing about Rudd, who also is an active christian.

What about practising what you preach?

Abbott was supposed to be Dr yes, so far has done nothing but criticize what Labor are doing. Abbott and Pell are two of a kind, his guiding light, and his influence.
It will virtually be impossible for Thomson to get a fair trial. Abbott continually condemns him without justice.
Gillard is far to smart for Abbott, continually been one jump in front.
Abbott has not been exactly truthful, he can't remember a meeting with Pell two weeks ago. Caught out big time.
How long do you give Abbott, before he shoves his foot down his throat, it could come at any time, specially with parliament starting on the 5 th. His old habbits will continue, with not any concern for the welfare of AU.

so far has done nothing but criticize what Labor are doing.
579,
your level of hypocrisy is reaching for the stars with this one. It's you lot who are vindictive beyond imagination.

Labor have asked Abbott for substance, that is beyond his capabilities.
His 3 days of being a changed man have ended. It 's now time to look into the slime pit to find something to say.
Even when we get something like a policy it will be negative. Like taking money away from school kids.
His dispising of the speaker and Gillard, will come to the fore.
Womens issues will not be mentioned.
Everything will be extremely negative as usual.

Lexi,

Regarding SM's response to you on "the presumption of innocence":

What did I tell you : )

Labor have asked Abbott for substance,
579,
Who else are they supposed to ask , hardly their own ?

579,

Some have forgotten but most don't even know about the fraud that Mal Brough perpetrated on the indigenous community while Minister.

Refusing to make comments to the media or the NT government himself about allegations of aboriginal paedaophilia and child abuse he left it up to a "Lateline exclusive" where an ex-indigenous social worker "whistle-blower" gave examples of both.

It turned out that the whistle-blower was in fact a member of Brough's own staff.

Where was the public outrage then? Where is it now?

It should also be noted that the ABC did not immediately and publicly admit they were conned by Brough so where does that leave allegations of pro-Labor bias?

Here's a bit more "integrity".

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2012/2012fca1411

(I take it you don't consider Rares J to be a lefty cretin, Constance :)

wobbles,

'Organised' child pedophilia may not have been established in the investigation. But surely you are not denying the widespread practices of sexual molestation of both girls and boys that exists in indigenous communities and bloomed in the many years of self management from the Whitlam government on, where the curtain of secrecy prevented outside scrutiny until very recent times.

What would you say is the correct word for such organised practices? You might be able to suggest one instead of cloaking it all under claimed indigenous 'culture' and 'traditions', disguising and excusing such practices under the cloak of multiculturalism. What about the children having choice and being offered the same protection as other Aussie children?

One hopes that the Royal Commission into child abuse would finally result in some glimmers of hope for aboriginal children. However credit is due to the Australian Greens for their concerns that the royal commission into child sexual abuse lacks a focus on such activities in aboriginal communities. Political correctness rules and children suffer.

Although there are already laws to prevent such practices, Nicola Roxon has mooted new laws against forced child marriage. Hopefully tat covers all forms of arranged marriage. Here again one hopes that the arranged child marriages and child brides in aboriginal communities will finally receive attention and be deterred.

That politicians on both sides of the house, Mal Brough included, have challenged such practices over the years is credit to them. For too long hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars have been diverted and squandered by a victim industry, instead of realising the purposes for which the money was allocated.

What is worrying is that the same people who gain from the system remaining dysfunctional are so often in positions of influence and power to endure that aboriginal children do not receive the same rights, education and childhood enjoyed by other children. We should get angry about them, not the politicians who struggle against vested interests with clever lawyers (often paid for by government).

Generally.
This thread could go on for as long as the actual RC so and unfortunately both thread and RC will not make an iota of difference.
Perhaps some of you might remember Franca Areana in the NSW parliament. She alluded to the pedophile 'rings' and their adherents in high places and stated that as long as these parasites are protected by their secret societies, their high profile memberships and their community influences they will continue to mistreat and molest and indeed murder our children.

579>> It will virtually be impossible for Thomson to get a fair trial<<

What an excellent outcome comrade. It evens up the books given it has been virtually impossible for HSU rank and file to get a fair hearing on the theft of their funds by greedy filthy lying Labor scum who have denied them justice through the union and judicial system.

Here is a question, the PM says the election date but has she gone to the GG? If she has not then surely it is just what she says she will do. No election here then.
Thompson could still lose his seat and in fact there could be some sort of turn around in parliament and the government could be made to actually call an election immediately. The PM is just so incompetent I think anything is possible.

579, Abbott is in a very admireable position, whereby he doesn't have to win the election, as it is quite obvious that labor are going to loose.

You have around 200 days to come to terms with that, or, you can remain in denial as you have for the past year or more.

Your call!

"Despite the remarks of some politicians
every Australian is entitled to the due
process of the law and being considered
to be innocent until proven guilty -
even a Member of Parliament.

I can't help wondering what effect all this
is having on Craig Thomson's wife and family?
Posted by Lexi,"

- what ever happened to innocent until proved guilt ?, well he's about to find out - George Carlin 'lying politicians and words'

579>> It will virtually be impossible for Thomson to get a fair trial<<

It might take you a week or so to get there 579 but hey, you do get there eventually. What was it that tipped you off?

No, sorry, don’t answer that, leave yourself a little dignity.

Everything his lawyer and the progressive media have done since CT’s arrest has been with that single objective in mind. Not because anyone gives a rats about CT, they just don’t want this to harm their beloved leader Kim Young Naïve.

sonofgloin, I agree with you 100%. My partner was an active member of the HSU East for years, one of the 20 bucks an hour people working in a public hospital, still is. Many 1,000's lost their union protections because of the maggots Thompson and Williamson plus a few others. It was partly on my advice she resigned in protest in the first place, the first time ever I have advised someone to resign from the union. Now these workers face an attack on their jobs by the conservative NSW government. Some like my partner have rejoined recently, they asked her to become a 'delo' for them again, my advice was no, not now, not while ever the maggots are free. The sight of Thompson sicken HSU members and Labor has the hide to accept his vote.
Like many, Gillard knows the truth but sold out workers to protect her own political hide. This saga, like what Labor has done to workers in other places, is another nail in the ALP coffin, I firmly believe there will be no Labor Party in 10 years from now, mass defections from the disillusioned left of the party may not be all that far off. The right split from the party once before, hopefully those of the left will do so again. As for the Labor right, I for one, don't care what they do.

Nice try Parrot,

Are you seriously trying to compare Brough's support of Ashby with the various Labor MPs facing multiple fraud charges?

"Nice try Parrot"

Parrot...?

Again I ask - when you turn ten, can we all come to your party?

Hey Poirot, I don't know about SM's tenth birthday but when we have flushed the socialist children out of government, you can come to my party!

It's BYOT, so bring your own tishues. Don't bother with an RSVP as we doubt your psychiatrist will let you out on weekend leave.

Wow, this Craig Thomson thing has generated much discussion on our Forum.

Just a couple of things I'd like to say - some folk herein have commented on the protracted period of time it's taken to charge Mr Thomson with anything. The inference being, their (police) case is not particularly strong, necessitating the need to 'reach' deeply into the available data (the icecream) to charge Mr Thomson ?

It doesn't indicate nor reflect in anyway, the strengths or otherwise, of the degree of cupability of a person charged. In fraud, matters, there are generally mountains of documents that need careful scrutiny. Many of which, are often structured in such a manner, as calculated to deceive. By willingly 'feeding' or furnishing material to police, deliberately designed to obfuscate the true intent of the information contained therein. In order to deflect investigators from their enquiries.

And it must be remembered, in fraud as in any other criminal matter the Crown MUST prove it's case to a point beyond that of a reasonable doubt. And that's a very high burdan of proof. Thus it's vitally important detectives ensure the criminal proofs are covered absolutely and comprehensively, before handing-up the brief to DPP.

And in this case, Mr Thomson is a very important and high profile individual. Police also have a duty to check any evidence that may prove exculpatory of wrongdoing of any individual under investigation. It all takes time - a case of hasten slowly !

I might also add, as a retired detective sergeant myself, I'm rather surprised how quickly the Victorian police were, in bringing charges.

P,

For someone that supposedly sees in himself the image of a fictional detective, your powers of deduction are remarkably feeble. The only way you can support your argument that Thomson is innocent is to refer to and "parrot" polemics from left wing fringe commentators, and ignore the findings of judicially appointed bodies, and their vast body of evidence.

The substitution of Parrot for Poirot is such a delicious fit both phonetically and metaphorically that it is difficult to resist. The fit of pique it has elicited from you indicates that it has more than hit its mark.

I will refrain from using the moniker except when your comments are more repetitive than deductive.

SM,

I was prepared to start calling you Shallow Minister (that fits the bill too :)...except I thought it was a tad childish to continue on with such banter (btw, I did initially appreciate the parrot reference - I have got a sense of humour)

You're not on again about that flawed FWA "investigation" are you?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5416&page=0#148236

P,

Irrespective of the flaws in the FWA report, there was still reams of damning evidence against Thomson, and subsequently there was team put together to fill the gaps.

Are you seriously trying to say that there was no proof against Thomson in the entire report?

No use any of us speculating about Thomson, the judicial process will no doubt resolve this long drawn out saga. I doubt Thomson had much to do with setting the election date. For my pennies worth it had more to do with the resignations of two Ministers declaring they would not stand at the next election. If I was PM I would have done the same thing to settle in the new front bench.

When Australia wakes up to fixed election terms none of the mainstream media nonsense will fester as it always does at this time.

Pelican, announcing the date of the election would not have affected
anything as everyone knows roughly when the election will be.
The same thing could be said about settling in to the portfolio whether
the election date was known or not.

I would say it had something to do with preventing a by-election either
because of Thompson, or an internal maneuver to disadvantage Rudd.

Bazz
I could see that setting the election date may have been to offset Rudd's desires for leadership but I don't think Craig Thomson's case would have been finalised before the election in any case. To tie in the early announcement to him is misguided IMO.

Poirot,

When someone comes up with something that fits a particular situation, is humorous, catchy and likely to “stick”, it’s called “original thought”, a quip, a barb, a one liner, it’s called humor.

When you try to emulate it, it is no longer an original idea or thought, it’s just a copy. You said yourself that the Parrot tag was humorous. SM is also right, it does fit nicely.

Any attempt to gain advantage by replication is a manifestation of “childlike satisfaction of the immediacy”, a reflection of the power of ridicule (rather than Hercule) and an indicator of the emotion felt by the recipient.

It was well targeted, you definitely did not think it humorous, and it will stick, not because it was that “sticky” but because you have made yourself the fly paper. When you try to do the same to others, it is no longer original thought, just a juvenile attempt at a copy that gets no traction.

Just to emphasize how much you are making yourself an immature target, you could easily attract the tag of Ridicule Parrot rather than Hercule Poirot.

Where is your intellectual “original thought”? Remember that one of the key attributes of cult membership is the loss of spontaneous humor.

Do try for something original, humorous and give us all a belly chuckle (sorry Belly).

spindoc,

Yes we all know that you thought of it first - and that SM simply picked it up and ran with it.

The whole monicker thing is supremely unimportant (aside from the initial first giggle)....your last post was you attempting to grab yourself a little kudos for coming up with it.

Very well then...

You're a clever little spindoc aren't you : )

(will that suffice for now?)

Pelican, I included Thompson in it because there could be a risk that
he would resign for some reason or other.
I don't think he will resign, but you never know.

The latest from Peter Wicks:

http://wixxyleaks.com/2013/02/06/here-we-go-again/

"...most people are not aware that each alleged offence in this case is actually two charges. The doubled number reported so it looks worse for the defendant, it looks like things are twice as bad as they are. The second charge is laid for the authorisation of the alleged purchase, for example buying an ice cream is the charge, signing the credit card slip authorising payment for the ice cream is another."

those defending the indefensible are like the Catholic hierachy that explained away child abuse. Instead of being shamed into silence they still condone the putried actions of some trade unionist. No surprise in a day of moral relativism. Maybe Dawkins and his mob can give some absolution at the next meeting of the godless.

Yes, runner,

Brilliant!!

I see that you're a supporter of the "presumption of innocence" too(insert Sarmark here)....

I expect that from you as you're inordinately judgmental of your fellow man in general

Well done : )

I am heartily sick of the fawning and grovelling about our legal system. Judges were all once lawyers and they interpret the law. Of course some molest children, take bribes and hopelessly interpret the law.
CT sued Fairfax when they reported his union misdeeds, CT sued them and then dropped the action with the Labour party picking up the legal tab. I really do not think I have to labour this point because it is so obvious.
You fawn over the judges and our legal system (Here is a tip read Bleak House) and I will wish we had kept the pillory as a punishment.

Casting the first stone again Runner?

Nice to see all is well in the land of?....:) But back to the topic Of Craig Thomson, the legal system of what? will tell if the spade is a spade. I think any human can make a? Question is, how can one look up to those that make these points of miss----well, you might get the point:).......The law will be, and in that I trust.

As for his vote, he must be leased(punt intended) for the time being, and all must wait for the out come.

Planet3

wobbles

'Casting the first stone again Runner?'

actually no, just pointing out the hyprocrisy of those who were quick to be pleased to hang Mr Abbott for supposedly punching a war when he was in his twenties with little or no evidence and then they have the nerve to defend a man with 150 charges of wasting cleaners money on prostitutes among other thigs.

Runner,

Stand back, I want to cast the first stone against this reptile. I would like to see him and his labor cronies, that think feeding off the money from union members, taxpayers etc, made an example of.

The Labor government including Juliar survives upon the "presumption of innocence."

Still no presumption of innocence for Joh or Russ (or Abbott) coming from those who proclaim the presumtion of innocence as an unwavering bedrock.

I do believe in tne presumption of innocence also think it has some limits (which is does in law) and that in this instance its being often cited more from political convenience than out of real principle. Its convenient to keep Julia in power (or possibly more to the point Tony out of power). When it comes to a politician from the coalition then the principle does not matter so much.

Under the law someone who has not been convicted will still often be incarcerated unless they can meet bail conditions. Someone accused of DV can still loose access to family, home, property and finances to benefit of the accused. A teacher accussed of doing the wrong thing with children (sexual or otherwise) can find their career washed down the drain.

The presumption of innocence is a balance. It should never be dismissed on the basis of an accusation by someone with a vested interest in the outcome however where there is reasonable evidence some action is often appropriate.

The presumption of innocence does not protect ordinary people from the often crippling legal bills that go with defending themselves, people who don't have the backing of a political party willing to use members money to pay those bills.

If people are serious about the presumption of innocence there are far more worthy cases to start with than Thompson, people with far weaker cases against them, people who have not had a wad of legal bills paid on their behalf.

R0bert

Come on folks, stop worrying about the maggot Thompson. When he goes to jail, note I use the word when not if, which is more of a certainty than Australia losing a rugby match to the All Blacks, it will be so cool, he will love it. Most likely Thompson will land in Long Bay, where he will take up residence in the Rex Jackson memorial wing. The Lad will be so busy shaking hands and discussing the rights of the common man with such Labor luminaries as Eddie, Ian, Milton and what's her name from out Penrith way etc etc, it will be like having a free holiday in the Snowy with Robbo and other Laborites. such joy awaits the Lad.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Our telephone lines have been
down all week so I haven't been able to access the internet
and hence the Forum and read any of the posts on Mr Thomson.
I've now managed to catch up slightly.

Whether Mr Thomson is guilty or not, I, like quite a few
people strongly feel that it's not for us to judge but to
allow due process to go through. I'm sure that his case
will be dealt with and his innocence or guilt will be judged
accordingly by the courts.

As far as Mr Abbott and the Opposition is concerned it would
be wise for them to heed Mr Abbott's earlier statement of:

"We have certainly respected, or tried to respect the rule
that you do not comment on the specifics of cases which are
currently before the courts and we will respect that rule."

But then in the same breath Mr Abbott adding that the PM ran a
"protection racket" for Mr Thomson infers something "crooked,"
and is not in keeping with the earlier statement.

Best to simply not comment, and stick to and respect the rule
would be the best advice in this matter.

As for "hate campaign" references. I fully agree that those
politicians who seek to be in government by destruction, in the
absence of any policy, reform agenda or vision do not
deserve support. These Politicians are simply hollow,
reducing complex issues to inane slogans and negative
rhetoric, they lower the national debate. They don't have
the character, maturity, nor integrity to maintain their
current positions let alone be allowed to ascend any further.

Voters deserve better as does the Nation.

Lexi,

Thomson is now facing the full force of the law, and his political and other careers are over. I feel no pity for him, only his family. The issue of his guilt or innocence is not whether due procedure should be allowed to take its course, but because Juliar, Labor, and its allies have deliberately shielded the weasel and delayed justice to keep the numbers in the lower house, and the term protection racket and its implications that Juliar has been running are particularly apt.

Juliar stated repeatedly whether she had confidence in Thomson, and had his bills paid by Labor, and has essentially nailed her colours to his mast. (which is now sinking rapidly)

What has to be remembered is that Labour LOST the last election !
They are in government only because they pork barreled the two independents,
out bid the coalition and paid Thompson's legal bills.
So, no ifs no buts they BOUGHT government !

Yada, yada,yada, Bazz.

If the Labor "lost" then so did the Coalition.

Here's the full text of Windsor's speech relating Abbotts push for ze top job:

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/youre-an-absolute-disgrace-full-text-of-tony-windsors-speech-that-put-abbott-in-his-place/

What was that again?....oh yes - "I will do anything, Tony [Windsor] to get this job; the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse."

Now that's a bloke to hold in high esteem : )

'What was that again?....oh yes - "I will do anything, Tony [Windsor] to get this job; the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse." '

coming from a man full of hate and willing to poop on his own electorate. You know how to pick winners Poirot.

You can package it up however you like, but the coalition had more members.
Never the less, Labour DID buy government !

er...runner....

That was Tony Abbott talking about preserving the ownership of his arse - not Mr Windsor. -

Tony Abbott was directing his spiel at Tony Windsor.

What was that you said about picking winners?

(keep up the good work in attributing "hate" to people whose politics you're against - Guffaw!)

You're right, Poirot, and in the same vein, one could say that Gillard's dependence on Thompson's vote requires her to overlook the possibility that he bought, many times over, other parts of women's anatomy, with the money from the poorest-paid of working women.

A real hero.

But Gillard clearly has no trouble taking his vote, since after all, she defended Slipper so passionately in his characterisation of women's private parts.

Another real hero.

Do they have your full support too, Poirot ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Dear oh dear...

Your comments are rather sweeping and you're making
all sorts of summations but I guess judging from
many of the posts here - you're not alone. Still,
things do need clarification:

1) The PM's dependence on Mr Thomson's vote? Really?
I believe that Mr Thomson is no longer a member of the
Labor Party - but is now an "Independent." Can anyone
really predict ahead of time, how the man will vote.

2) As for the PM "overlooking" any of the charges against
Mr Thomson? I believe that she's leaving that matter to
the Courts and to due process. Which is afterall the right
of all Australian citizens, even Members of Parliament.

3) The Slipper case is an interesting one isn't it?
A Judge threw it out of court.

A real hero?
I take it you mean the judge.

Dear, sweet, innocent, good-hearted Lexi,

1) Thompson is never going to NOT vote for the Labor Party - don't you think they would have so much dirt on him that he would be drowned in it if he stepped out of line, 'independent' or not ?

2) Yes, you're right, but we'll see, won't we ?

3) Ah, the feminist selective memory - does the mention of Slipper and mussels ring any sort of bell ? That's what Gillard defended, Slipper's comments about stinking wrinkly mussels, as that evil b@stard Abbott looked at his watch - what a total misogynist !

Real heroes ! Real feminists !

You're just too forgiving, Lexi :)

Love,

Joe

I am really amazed at Poirot & Lexi;
Lexi is totally blinded if she thinks Thompson is not still a Labour
Party member. He is just not on the membership file.
Lexi are you really that stupid that you think such a statement would
hold water ?
They paid for his vote by paying his legal fees when he had to abandon
a defamation action against Fairfax.
They had to pay it or he would have been bankrupt and a bankrupt cannot
sit in parliament.
But I bet you knew all that anyway, so why try to shove that nonsense
down our throat ?

Poirot, you are being nearly as dopey as Lexi;
>If the Labor "lost" then so did the Coalition.

No, the coalition had two more votes than Labour.
The two independents and the greens were three.
But like Lexi I think you know all that anyway, so are you both Trolling
or hoping to fool one or two more ?

Loud Mouth,

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2012/2012fca1411

Read it and weep : )

(Of course, any finding that Brough collaborated with the miniature Trojan Horse, Ashby, is fine with Tony - funny that:)

Bazz,

Lexi and I are entitled to our opinion.

And let's not get technical. If it had have been the other way around and the Coalition had just fallen over the line, I'll bet you wouldn't have quibbled.

Hey Lexi,

I don't know about you, but when Loudmouth dons his smarmy sarcastic Lothario persona - I find it an a kind of ultra turn-off.

Here is the bloke criticising Slipper's crap while enacting his own kind of "sweetie-lovey" garbage. He uses it on me when he's attempting to provoke me.

I notice he doesn't pull the same stunt with the blokes around here - and for that matter there are no other blokes around here who pull a sexist stunt to provoke the women.

That honour rests with Joe "Loudmouth" Lane - the one who's always pointing out others' sexist foibles.

Sad really......

Ad hominem, Poirot - can we get back to the issues ?

Actually, I do feel that way towards Lexi - she does always seem to see the good side in people, and I honestly do think of her as sweet and innocent, if occasionally of the mark. I'm sorry if that sounds sexist in some way but there you go.

Gillard defended Slipper, not because he is some sort of crypto-feminist, in spite of his vile remarks about mussels, but because she needed his vote. As crude and non-feminist as that.

It used to be called opportunism.

I'll leave it up to you, and whatever conscience you may still have, to decide whether or not Slipper is a die-hard misogynist. I think he is. So sue me.

Joe

"Ad hominen, Poirot - can we get back to the issues ?"

Oh come now, Loudmouth. You're the one who raised the issue of Slipper and his misogyny. I was just highlighting your own penchant to play the mocking male to certain women on this forum - namely moi....

Here's a little peek at your style.

First you raise the flag wondering where Poirot is and why she hasn't paid you any attention:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14627&page=0#252546

Poirot replies "briefly".

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14627&page=0#252549

And then you pull your stunt:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14627&page=0#252550

Do you talk to other men like that on this forum?

Of course you don't.

That is reserved for women when you wish to provoke them.

And then you have the gall to bleat ad infinitem that we should get back to topic. Always the same tactic, to prod and provoke and then claim your target is the one going off topic.

Still, most of the guys on OLO are bigger than that - shame about you.

Ad hominem a fortiori, Poirot.

It's not always just about you, dear.

Now can we get back to the issues ?

Does Gillard exploit and distort the issue of misogyny or not ? Is she utilising Thompson as much as possible, or not ? Just for his slimy vote ?

Is she prepared to rely on a sleaze like Slipper, and to go into bat for him, regardless of his vile opinions about women, or not ? Just for his slimy vote ?

Cheers,

:)

Joe

Dear Poirot,

I don't know whether Joe (Loudmouth) is having a
go at me by flattering me,
or even if he's trying to provoke me.
However, it doesn't change my opinion on the issues.

The courts will decide regarding Mr Thomson's
innocence or guilt and the rest of us should
simply wait until they do before making any
assumptions or judgements.

I respect and admire your logic and reasoning
and I always have.
You're one poster on this forum whose posts I always
read.

Take care.

Lexi,

I presume that Loudmouth isn't necessarily out to provoke "you".

Although he's still a tad patronising, he's probably fairy genuine in your case.

However, I know he's out to provoke me with his patronising "sweetie" crap...he's used it plenty of times for that end. And the minute you call him out on his low tactics, he yelps "ad hominem!" and requests you get back to the subject at hand (which he usually has already skewed:)

I mean can you imagine him addressing any of the the fellas around her with an equivalent to "Come on, sweetie, you can do better ;)"?

And then he has the temerity to bring up Slipper's rhetoric as ammo in this thread.

(I suppose on the slime-o-meter there are different degrees of viscosity.... I find being provoked and patronised fairly slimy:)

Anyway, thanks for your kind words : )

Dear Poirot,

You're welcome.

Keep on posting!

Hi Lexi and Poirot,

I sincerely apologise for any offense, and if you thought my remarks were patronising - the point is that, here on OLO, probably for most of us, we develop a liking for many other contributors, as well as a dislike for some others, and as it happens, I tend to like pretty much all identifiably female congributors, and many of the identifiably male ones, as well as the ambiguous contributors too.

And of course, it shouldn't come as a surprise that, for all our differences, I like both of you. You contribute passionatley and sincerely, you give it hyour best shot, you get involved, and I'm sure many of us out here admire that in any contributor.

So what are the issues here ? Thompson was sooner or later going to be either arrested or 'invited' down to the station. Perhaps one has to be paranoid to believe that Gillard knew it was about to happen, so pulled on a Clayton's Election Campaign - still leaving open the opportunity to pull on an election at any time, if some 'unforeseen crisis' demanded it 'in the national interest'.

Maybe so, maybe no. Either way, she locks in all that parliamentary support that the labor Government needs, from independents and Bandt, and corrals a fractious back-bench. She probably rules out a direct challenge from Rudd.

But I do have a feeling that she only has to slip up once or twice more, in a big way, and she's gone. She reminds me of those Chinese acrobats on those one-wheel bikes who have to balance a dozen plates on their foreheads - it could so easily go horribly wrong.

Can't wait :)

Loudmouth

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Thanks for that.

We've got interesting times ahead that's for sure
in this election year and things could go horribly
wrong for anyone. All sorts of things are being
disputed regarding Mr Thomson. It's up to the courts
to sort things out. In the meantime the Opposition
should heed the words of Mr Abbott:

"...to respect the rule that you do not comment on the
specifics of cases which are currently before the
courts..."

Lexi and Poirot are top contributors to this forum, and if not for them and Pelican, I would have pulled out long ago.
Loudmouth is one male contributor I have usually got on with, even when we are arguing : )

I agree that it was a bit suspect that Julia called an election just before Thompson was arrested, but I seriously doubt that the fraud squad rang her and told her when they would be arresting Thompson!

I think labour are finished now Loudmouth. They don't need any more 'setbacks', like the resignation of Roxon and Evans, to seal their fate.

Pity our only other 'choice' is the insipidly negative Abbott...

Yes, you're right Suze. What would OLO be like if only blokes could contribute, like in some sort of ghastly al-Shari'a dystopia ? Do some people find that comments offensive ? Beauty.

About Thomson, perhaps some junior officer could have tipped off a friend, who passed the news onto another friend, but I'll leave the conspiracy theories to Arjay.

The tragedy is going to be that Labor will lose so many seats at the election - maybe thirty or forty - that it will be crippled for many years, struggling to re-build in areas where I has been decimated. I'll be sorry to see my member go, he's a decent bloke.

And as Pericles has pointed out, it's not as if people are moving to the Greens - their vote seems to have dropped from around 14 % to barely 9 %. Maybe people aren't all that stupid, they are keeping their feet on the ground.

Interesting times !

Joe

I don't know if there would be official notification for the PM's office if a member of parliament was about to be arrested but I seriously doubt that there would not be some kind of unofficial channels for a case of this political significance.

I'm undecided regarding the reason for the way the election was called. It may not be one single answer.

I do think that it's time that the decision regarding the timing of an election was out of the hands of the incumbent to be manipulated for political advantage, rather it should be subject to a more independent process. Perhaps a fixed term to be varied only with agreement from a certain majority in both houses of parliament or in extraordinary circumstances by the head of state.

Keep some opportunity for flexibility in a crisis but remove the wide open door for political manipulation of the process.

R0bert

Good point, Robert. Would the Party Whip (I think that's currently Albanese) have to be informed beforehand ? Or the Speaker ?

Fixed-terms, and maybe four-year terms, would allow both parties to get back to the business of being Government and Opposition, leaving an election campaign to the last few months of each term.

Fat chance :)

Joe

"Fixed-terms, and maybe four-year terms, would allow both parties to get back to the business of being Government and Opposition, leaving an election campaign to the last few months of each term."
This looks very much like an American type system, where the a so called two party system operates. Is that what Australians want, I don't think so.
What many don't realise, 18% of voters don't support Labor or the coalition parties, they support smaller parties and independents. With the voting system in operation the major parties are given a disproportionate representation. Gillard is running the country with a mandate from 38% of voters, hardly democracy when one party gets 38% of the vote and 48% of the representatives. I support one vote one value.

Hi Paul,

There's nothing particularly American about four-year terms, or fixed terms. We even have them down here in South Australia.

So even if 'America = bad', it doesn't necessarily mean that 'four-year terms = bad', or 'fixed-terms = bad'. Try to think beyond the surface features.

The point about both is that they may give the political process a bit more stability, and let governments get on with their core business of looking after their mates.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, thanks.

Paul, I don't think that the idea of the "term" going outside the direct control of the incumbent would hurt the minor parties at all. Currently the date of the election is manipulated to try an maximise the chances of the party that currently holds power. Maybe there is a better plan than a nominated % of both houses as being the way to bring an election on early, your thoughts on that.

What I don't like is the idea of any party being able to manipulate the election cycle for their own benefit, a fixed term with an out to allow for some unforeseen crisis seems to be a far better plan than what we have now.

If nothing else think how hard it would have been for the Libs to change leaders over the last 12 months not knowing when the election would be held (a sudden early election while the party is still getting over a leadership spill?). I have no idea of what members really think of Abbott but it's clear that ousting him would have been very risky with the existing rules.

R0bert

I hope that Thomson gets a fixed term too, and that his trial runs over September.

Why is there so much corruption and dirt among Labour members, it must be their pre-selection process? I don’t think organised crime would be able to fit so much low-life into parliament. Look at the recent NSW Labour Government; they have been compared to the NSW Rum Corps in levels of corruption

I think to answer your question siller needs a study of the background
of the members.
The vast majority of them come from within the trade union movement.
It is the career path of choice, delegate, organiser, negotiator,
parliamentary assistant and finaally candidate.
There has been a number of scandals regarding embezzlement of union funds.
Certainly a lot of dodgy use of expenses funds.
Perhaps an enquirery needs to start there.