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.