"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?