Skip to content

Craig Thomson: “Obsessed with Dead Black Singers Pop Star Martyrdom!”

May 24, 2012
Craig Thomson fronts media in bizarre afro wig and black make-up
  • Craig Thomson compares himself to dead black pop stars Michael Jackson and Donna Summer!
  • Declares “Enough is Enough!”
  • Denies chimpanzee rumours

*** A STUNNING NEW FARNHAM REPORT EXCLUSIVE SPECIAL REPORT INVESTIGATION PROBE BULLETIN!!*** 

Embattled Labor MP Craig Thomson has invoked the memory of two famous black singers in his latest attempt to deflect attention away from a raft of inquiries that are enveloping the controversial politician.

The embattled MP issued the appeal in a brief media appearance in Canberra today where he demanded to be “left alone”.

Leave me alone” is the one-time hit by the former self-professed “King of Pop” Michael Jackson who, like Thomson, was engulfed in a highly publicised, controversial sex scandal at the time of the song’s release.

 But the similarities don’t end there.

During his brief appearance, Mr Thomson once again lashed out at the media declaring “enough is enough”.

Enough is Enough” is the former chart-topping hit of the late black pop-star Donna Summer.

By strange coincidence both songs contain lyrics that draw strange parallels with events currently unfolding in the ongoing Craig Thomson credit-card cash squandering scandal.

In Enough is Enough, a desperate Donna Summer laments “It’s raining, it’s pouring
my lovelife is boring me to tears,” and “after all these years, I’ve always dreamed I ‘d find the perfect lover” until finally concluding “no sign of romance, we don’t stand a chance.”

Likewise, Michael Jackson repeatedly pleads to just be left alone…

“Just Leave Me Alone, Leave Me Alone, (Leave Me Alone), (Leave Me Alone), Leave Me Alone, (Leave Me Alone), (Leave Me Alone), (Leave Me Alone), Leave Me Alone-Stop It!, Just Stop Doggin’ Me Around, (Just Stop Doggin’ Me)..”

Coincidence? 

We think not. 

Mr Thomson refused to respond to the Farnham Report’s requests for an interview, and specifically to our question that his latest attempt to liken his predicament to that of famous dead black singers was just the latest ruse in a string of attempts to garner public sympathy.

 “Quite frankly, this is journalism at its worst” he said.

 

 

Advertisements
129 Comments leave one →
  1. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 24, 2012 1:41 pm

    Dead “black” singers, Reb?

  2. May 24, 2012 1:46 pm

    LOL @snacty…

    True… MJ is questionable …

  3. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 24, 2012 1:57 pm

    On a far more serious note, and I kind of raised this not long ago.

    Whose fault is it if this guy tops himself? I reckon I would have just about by now.

    It’s pretty distasteful for the Coalition to continue after this as hard as they are EXCEPT that the entire strategy of Labor/Thomson appears to be resist and delay until it all goes away, in which case the Coalition absolutely SHOULD pursue it.

    I think it’s probably time for the Coalition to drop the whole matter but have as an election policy a full review of the reporting arrangements of trade unions and bringing them into line with Corporations Law. With retrospective effect.

  4. Tom R permalink
    May 24, 2012 2:01 pm

    the entire strategy of Labor/Thomson appears to be resist and delay until

    There is some kind of a charge against him ❓

  5. May 24, 2012 2:04 pm


    “Whose fault is it if this guy tops himself? I reckon I would have just about by now. ”

    I know what you mean, but he has pretty much brought the entire sorry situation onto himself..

    If he is as innocent as he claims, why didn’t he go to the police when he first discovered that there were fraudulent expenses on his credit card?

    Why didn’t he report his credit card, drivers licence and mobile phone as stolen?

    Why is he refusing to cooperate with the Police?

    As Andrew Wilkie said the other day, the whole thing stinks.

  6. JAWS permalink
    May 24, 2012 2:05 pm

    I reckon it’s the job of his friends in the ALP to offer him some collegial advice to do the best thing for himself and family and resign. After all they could have continued to fund his legals if they had any real decency about it

    A “full review” of Unions…….?

    They need a Royal Commission.

  7. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 24, 2012 2:16 pm

    There is some kind of a charge against him

    Like you and your lot did on far less serious allegations involving previous ministers and a Governor General? You’re an idiot. Fitness for Parliamentary representation has nothing to do with due process or presumption of innocence. There has been a deliberate effort on the part of Thomson and the ALP to drag this whole sorry business out until people are bored with it. It’s for that reason that I’m reluctant to advocate letting it go. It’s the Labor/Union way and it’s how the Wilson and Heiner affairs were dealt with. It’s utter bullshit. And whilst they employ this tactic they have no business participating in any discussion on accountability.

  8. Tom R permalink
    May 24, 2012 2:27 pm

    You’re an idiot.

    The level of ‘debate’ around here hasn’t changed a lot, has it lol

  9. cassiekey permalink
    May 24, 2012 2:27 pm

    If you took the hookers view of Thomson the song would be more along the lines of LMFAO’s “sexy and I know it”

  10. Meta permalink
    May 24, 2012 2:35 pm

    (Boredom looks like this, apparently; although, others suggest it’s more inscrutable than that.)

  11. May 24, 2012 2:36 pm

    Ooooh! I suspect I’m in the midst of a lynch mob. Bottom line, if he’s done something criminal why are the constabulary all over him like a rash? Why didn’t the HSU go to the police if he’d been ripping them off? Why hasn’t the HSU demanded all this money back? Why has the FWA report been debased by the AEC? Why are Phoney Tony, Whiney Pyne and the NO Coalition pursuing this like the want to be the government? Why are Craig and the ALP hanging on like grim death? Why did the credit card bill say Thompson rather than Thomson? Why didn’t the ACTU step in to such a disfunctional union? Why did the FWA report take so long? Why won’t my mother breastfeed me any more?
    I know the answer to the last one, but the way things are going the answers to the others will be lost in lies, damned lies and pollie poo!

  12. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 24, 2012 2:43 pm

    ”The level of ‘debate’ around here hasn’t changed a lot, has it lol”

    It’s informed and accurate as always!

    (Are you interested in a list of inaccurate claims of “baseless media speculation”?)

  13. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 24, 2012 2:47 pm

    Interesting questions deknarf.

    I bet the ACTU and the ALP had dealt with all this 3+ years ago, rather than expressing “complete confidence” in Thomson.

    Perhaps part of the answers to your questions is due to Thomson’s unwillingness to co-operate with investigations such as FWA and the police.

  14. Tom R permalink
    May 24, 2012 2:50 pm

    Are you interested in a list of inaccurate claims of “baseless media speculation”?

    You mean along the lines of “Gillard will be gone by Easter!” ❓

  15. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 24, 2012 3:06 pm

    Bottom line, if he’s done something criminal why are the constabulary all over him like a rash?

    The NSW police referred the matter to the Vic Police (unlike what Thomson said about being cleared). They are all over it from what I can tell.

    Why didn’t the HSU go to the police if he’d been ripping them off? Why hasn’t the HSU demanded all this money back?

    More questions we’d like answers to. Kathy Jackson appears to be trying, but meeting a lot of resistance.

    Why has the FWA report been debased by the AEC?

    It hasn’t.

    Why are Phoney Tony, Whiney Pyne and the NO Coalition pursuing this like the want to be the government?

    Because they want to be in Government.

    Why are Craig and the ALP hanging on like grim death?

    Possibly to stay in Government. Although it’s reached such a point that some of us a wondering at the size of what might be discovered once the box is opened.

    Why did the credit card bill say Thompson rather than Thomson?

    Not sure, but it doesn’t appear to be an issue of substance in the matter (ie, it’s not on Craig Thomson’s list of conspiracy excuses)

    Why didn’t the ACTU step in to such a disfunctional union?

    We can only wonder.

    Why did the FWA report take so long?

    We’d all like to know. Perhaps it might have to do with the box being opened.

    Why won’t my mother breastfeed me any more?

    They often lose enthusiasm when babies grow teeth, but I can’t speak for your mum, or even your dental completeness.

    This is the point though. As soon as one advocates dropping the whole matter, along comes TomR and Franked with all the reasons why one shouldn’t.

  16. Neil of Sydney permalink
    May 24, 2012 3:14 pm

    Bottom line, if he’s done something criminal why are the constabulary all over him like a rash?

    Not good to post things from memory but I am pretty sure i read that spending Union funds on hookers is not a crime. Immoral of course but you cannot be charged in NSW for spending Union funds on prostitutes.

    I guess the reason the NSW police handed the matter to the Victoria police is that they may have found a crime he can be charged with in Victoria.

    Bit like Al Capone. Can’t get him for bank robbery but may get him for tax avoidance.

  17. Meta permalink
    May 24, 2012 3:17 pm

    (Yes; it’s very wrong of Craig not to cooperate with police and to cooperate with the advices of his legal counsel when navigating a larger legal system; whosoever allows, or worse, defends that kind of behaviour as a lawful or ethical thing deserves everything they get. Surely, We, the Australian People expect a much higher standard of behaviour from our Parliamentarians; which is why, once again, general standards found via the rule of law, applied equally under law without fear or favour, and per applicable specific laws and legally-appreciated rights, must, nay MUST, be lowered in this very special case; and, indeed, a good Parliamentarian would positively cooperate in that. If not, then, once again, it’s a sign that that that Parliamentarian neither is representative of the community nor fit to occupy a position of trust within it. More, and obviously, and by corollary, a police state, and cooperation with it, is to be preferred; although, and mysteriously, even the police seem to be cooperating with Craig’s non-cooperation within a larger legal system; so maybe not.)

  18. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 24, 2012 3:26 pm

    That’s fine, Meta, then don’t go on TV complaining about the length of time investigations are taking, don’t lie about being cleared, don’t lie about letters of support, don’t lie about defamation settlements, in fact, don’t go on TV at all because you (Thomson) lie every time you do it. Better still, resign. For your own good, that of your family, for the good of the trade union movement, that of your political party, and that of the broader nation. Just resign.

  19. JAWS permalink
    May 24, 2012 3:36 pm

    One of my informed sources at TCN9 (yes I actually do know a couple of people there) reckon they are, in the best traditions of Tabloid TV Journalism , toying with having a

    “ highly experienced private eye who has been trained and worked with the FBI” to conduct…………………………………….

    Drum Roll Please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    **************************** A Lie Detector Test on “Candy”*****************************

    Anyway apparently the first part of their investigation goes to Air tonight with the “Interview” to happen next week

  20. cassiekey permalink
    May 24, 2012 3:36 pm

    I agree with one thing CT is saying, enough is enough. The snoty nosed little tosser could put a complaint to the police, after all he is always going to sue someone, if all this actually went to court he could have all those nasty,lying conspirators put in prison, he would be a hero and live happily ever after.

  21. JAWS permalink
    May 24, 2012 3:49 pm

    Of course the fact that there is now a sworn stat dec from “Candy” will not change the reasoning of the barrackers.

    Seems Candy is certain enough of who she “entertained” that she’s quite willing to be charged under the Oaths Act.

    Whereas Thomson wont even talk to the Police

  22. JAWS permalink
    May 24, 2012 4:17 pm

    The other thing is that the Current Affair producer actually spent 90 minutes in Thomson’s office yesterday talking to him.

    Now if I was soooooooooooooooooo innocent and someone walked in and said they have recorded an interview with a hooker who said she had “entertained” me the conversation would go something like this.

    JAWS : “OK Mr Producer why don’t you just go and f**k yourself. I do hope you put the interview on TV because I am going to absolutely screw you in Court for every cent your network …………………Now there’s the door get the f**k out of here.”

    The conversation would not have lasted 90 minutes

  23. Meta permalink
    May 24, 2012 4:23 pm

    (I don’t actually know what contacts, talks, or correspondences Thomson and/or his representatives might or might not have had with sundry persons or authorities, or vice versa; nevertheless, ‘Craig is not cooperating/cooperative’ seems to be another of those mantras which somehow have become promulgated and affixed in the public mind; even though, presumably, there are plenty of lawyer-types around to recount the long-history and reasons for ‘non-cooperation’, from the days of good King John on, if they so wished; but the lawyer-types seem resigned to telling wittle wite whys of omission and/or playing Deal, or No Deal, instead. And that’s fine, too.)

  24. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 24, 2012 4:32 pm

    defends that kind of behaviour as a lawful or ethical thing deserves everything they get.

    Personally I don’t mind if they accept the legal advice not to co-operate with law enforcement, but (I think) any MP who decides that they can’t co-operate the law should not be in the parliament determining the laws for themselves not to co-operate with.

  25. el gordo permalink
    May 24, 2012 4:45 pm

    Grant Williams ACA producer.

    ‘‘I can’t be fairer than that,’’ Mr Williams said. ‘‘You can’t be further away from grubby journalism by going through the front door and showing the bloke point blank what you’ve got on him. “

  26. JAWS permalink
    May 24, 2012 4:52 pm

    He’s gonna break eventually I reckon…………..

  27. Splatterbottom permalink
    May 24, 2012 4:58 pm

    “He’s gonna break eventually I reckon…………..”

    There will be plenty of loyal sycophants to pick up the pieces, loyal, that is, until the next election. Then he will have to go back to paying for company.

  28. May 24, 2012 5:04 pm

    I wouldn’t have done the afro, personally speaking.

    Just another example of Thomson’s poor decision-making capabilities.

  29. JAWS permalink
    May 24, 2012 5:07 pm

    “if he’s done something criminal why are the constabulary all over him like a rash? Why didn’t the HSU go to the police if he’d been ripping them off? Why hasn’t the HSU demanded all this money back? Why has the FWA report been debased by the AEC? Why are Phoney Tony, Whiney Pyne and the NO Coalition pursuing this like the want to be the government? Why are Craig and the ALP hanging on like grim death? Why did the credit card bill say Thompson rather than Thomson? Why didn’t the ACTU step in to such a disfunctional union? Why did the FWA report take so long?”

    1) Victorian Police are still investigating with the help of NSW Police. Victoria is the more appropriate jurisdiction as that is where this particular part of the HSU was incorporated.

    2) The HSU concluded an “exit “ audit on Thomson in 2009 or 2010. I cant recall which date exactly but that is when Thommo was embroiled with Fairfax

    3) The FWA Report has not been debased. Thomson’s electoral spend only “starts on the meter” from the moment he nominates for the Seat not in the lead up to it.

    4) The Credit Card was issued to the HSU. Thomson is the secondary party of liability not the primary party. Legally he is still liable for the bill even though his name is mis-spelt. I’ve had credit cards in the company name a few years ago along with many other individuals. It used to be the case that there was no need to prove your ID. The card would basically be issued on demand. So not that surprising that the name was wrong.

    5) You need to ask the ACTU why it sat on its hands

    6) You need to ask the Bill Shorten why FWA took so long.

    Sorry…………I cant help you with your Mum. Perhaps you should talk to ToM about her

  30. May 24, 2012 5:08 pm

    If I were Craig baby (thankfully I’m not) and I was guilty then I’d have probably resigned myself to my fate, and the only reason I was hanging on would be that I’d been told too by the ALP.
    If I wasn’t guilty and had the evidence to demonstrate it, I wouldn’t be cooperating with anyone, and waiting until I had my day in court, and payback time! I’d also be mean and ugly especially with those who had made unsubstantiated, unprovable allegations. A sneaky political strategy would be to draw the NO Coalition in and make absolute fools of them.
    I also note that ‘alleged’ has dropped of many of the media reports – very tasty!
    As for 9 and ACA — ewww! Does anyone actually put any credence in the material they deliver?
    I suspect that Craig may be in the former position, but there are so many unproven issues, and unanswered questions that I wouldn’t be putting a bet on it. Especially not my house!

  31. May 24, 2012 5:25 pm

    Frank,

    I think the reason that the term “alleged” has been dropped from many media reports is because now that FWA has completed its investigation and presented its report, the “allegations” are now “findings” (ie results)…

    Craig (along with barrage of supporters at certain other blogs) would like everyone to think that it’s all just hearsay, speculation and a “media beatup,” but the facts speak for themselves as does Thomson’s “X Files” explanation in Parliament…

  32. JAWS permalink
    May 24, 2012 5:29 pm

    “………If I wasn’t guilty and had the evidence to demonstrate it, I wouldn’t be cooperating with anyone, and waiting until I had my day in court, and payback time!………”

    Well clearly that is not the case otherwise why would you not at least prove it to the PM and remain in Caucus rather than have her decide you have crossed the line and she casts you out onto the crossbenches ?

    Your argument has no merit

  33. Neil of Sydney permalink
    May 24, 2012 5:30 pm

    The only thing that makes sense to me is that Craig is covering for his family. He does not want his kids to know what he has been up to and just hopes the whole thing will just go away.

  34. JAWS permalink
    May 24, 2012 5:33 pm

    “……He does not want his kids to know what he has been up to and just hopes the whole thing will just go away”

    You might be correct……………………after all its only been 3 years

    LOL

  35. May 24, 2012 5:36 pm

    I see that no one else in the media has made the Craig Thomson-Donna Summer-Michael Jackson connection…

    You just can’t trust Murdoch and Fairfax to deliver hard-hitting journalism these days.

    Are we the only ones that are able to connect the dots…??

  36. el gordo permalink
    May 24, 2012 5:40 pm

    If I was Craig I would not have sued Fairfax in the first place, bluff out the initial scandal and hope the stench went away.

    Being of unsound mind (compulsive lying) I have convinced myself that its no big deal using union funds as largesse.

    I won in the Kevin 07 election and many important ALP people supported me, I couldn’t let them down. When Julia asked me about my past I said it was nothing and she believed me, because its the troof.

    She lies about her past too.

  37. TB Queensland permalink
    May 24, 2012 5:45 pm

    He’s gonna break eventually I reckon…………..

    … and what an awful thing to do to anyone … waterboarding gets confessions too … pretty unreliable though …

    Your argument has no merit it has as much as more than yours, Wally …

    And for the Opposition barrackers here … including all the “I’m an ex-ALP voter but this government is shit so let’s have the other dickwits ‘ave a go brigade …

    I’ll think you’ll find that many posters here and elsewhere who disagree with your “assessment” of the situation, don’t simply say he is innocent BUT that HE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY … “beyond reasonable doubt” OR (depending on criminal or civil charges – none have yet been laid!) “on the balance of probabilities” …

    Something your medieval minds can’t seem to grasp …

    If Thomson IS innocent (or at least not guilty) and he does BREAK (break?? Jesus Christ this is domestic politics not a fkn war!) and tops himself … I take it I’ll hear the cheering from Melbourne, here in Brisbane …

  38. TB Queensland permalink
    May 24, 2012 5:48 pm

    Are we the only ones that are able to connect the dots…??

    What’s with the fkn WE, Blogmasta!

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    And no the bold wasn’t after PROVEN … but who gives a fk … certainly not me …

  39. May 24, 2012 5:56 pm

    “HE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”

    FWA found him guilty, or are you now questioning FWA..?

    Gillard seemed quite comfortable to side with FWA, despite earlier siding with Thomson, but then we are becoming accustomed to her flip-flopping around when it suits her politically.

  40. JAWS permalink
    May 24, 2012 6:25 pm

    “Your argument xxxxxxxx more than yours, Wally …”

    Well clearly that is not the case otherwise why would you not at least prove it to the PM and remain in Caucus rather than have her decide you have crossed the line and she casts you out onto the crossbenches ?

    The original “deknarf” argument does not pass the credibility test by a loooooooooooooooong shot

  41. Splatterbottom permalink
    May 24, 2012 6:33 pm

    “and what an awful thing to do to anyone”

    He is doing it to himself. He chose to sue Fairfax, but they called his bluff. He chose to tell his pre-selection committee that he was innocent of the Fairfax accusations and that he would demonstrate this by suing them. He constantly changed his story, got up and lied to parliament about support from an elderly woman who hadn’t corresponded with him for 25 years. He chose to use union funds to run his campaign. And this is what you seem to miss entirely, TB, even if he is “innocent” as far as the law goes, it was an act of selfish bastardry to use the funds belonging to low-paid members to fund his political ambitions. That gutless act would be enough to shame anyone (other than a Labor politician) into resigning.

    Most people facing the FWA findings against them would retire and focus on their family, their privacy and their defence. But Thomson chooses to stay in the limelight. He chooses to prop up a vile and disgraceful government and collect his parliamentary paycheck. The ALP could have paid the $400k to reimburse the HSU workersbut they preferred to pay Thomson so they could stay in pow

  42. May 24, 2012 6:38 pm

    Both the majors aren’t exactly covering themselves in glory.

    Thomson should maybe step away, innocent or not, simply to preserve his health & sanity.

  43. Meta permalink
    May 24, 2012 6:51 pm

    Hypothetically, that’s a resolution, I guess. It would certainly overcome a tendency towards hyperpolemics; but for how long would Christopher Pyne remember such an unusual line of inquiry?

  44. May 24, 2012 7:06 pm

    Once again I find myself in agreement with Splatterbottom…

    I see that the Thomson barrackers are now body language experts…

    “he must be innocent cos he got all choked up…”

    🙄

  45. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 24, 2012 7:06 pm

    TB, the innocent until proven guilty isn’t the standard people should apply when it comes to the behaviour of community leaders such as Members of Parliament.

    No one is suggesting that he should be convicted without the presumption of innocence, only that the findings of an independent authority, FWA, form a reasonable basis for forming a judgment or opinion.

    Clearly Thomson has demonstrated that he is entirely unsuitable for his current occupation. He should get out and find something else to do, particularly if he is finding his current circumstances too stressful.

  46. May 24, 2012 7:10 pm

    Christopher Pyne is best ignored, like catshit with a perm.

  47. TB Queensland permalink
    May 24, 2012 8:00 pm

    TB, the innocent until proven guilty isn’t the standard people should apply when it comes to the behaviour of community leaders such as Members of Parliament.

    LOL! Opinions, new standards, hypotheticals, bluffing, “selfish bastardry” … Godwin must be laughing himself titless at the moment!

    “What do we want?” … “Thomson out!” … “And when do we want it?” … “Now!”

    “What do we want?” … “Gillard out!” … “And when do we want it?” … “Now!”

    “What do we want?” … “Labor out!” … “And when do we want it?” … “Now!”

    And you dicks talk about union “thugs” … find a mirror …

  48. May 24, 2012 8:18 pm

    Very funny TB 🙂

    Instead, how about….

    “What do we want?… “The truth”

    “What do we want?… A consistent answer from he PM”

    “What do we want?… A believable explanation from Craig Thomson”

    “What do we want?… A decent government”

    But I guess we won’t be seeing any of that any time soon…

  49. TB Queensland permalink
    May 24, 2012 8:26 pm

    But I guess we won’t be seeing any of that any time soon…

    Don’t worry, sreb, the election will come soon enough and all will be well again! 😀

    Instead of John Howard & The Private School Bullies … we’ll have Tony Abbott & The Angelic Choir …

    (sarc alert!)

  50. Tony permalink
    May 24, 2012 8:42 pm

    ‘Instead of John Howard & The Private School Bullies … we’ll have Tony Abbott & The Angelic Choir …’

    And not a moment too soon. 😯

  51. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 24, 2012 9:15 pm

    
Howard was on the nose after his 11 years.

    This government has created a record level of stench in record time.

  52. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 24, 2012 9:15 pm

    “Innocent until proven guilty” exists because in a free country you want to be bloody sure before you deprive someone of their freedom.

    The political equivalent is that “justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done”. This concept can have some unfair outcomes especially with regard to ministerial responsibility, but it exists because parliamentarians must be seen to meet a higher standard.

    There is no presumption of innocence.

  53. Tony permalink
    May 24, 2012 9:17 pm

    Looking at that picture of Craig crying to in parliament, I almost feel sorry for him. Almost. But I don’t. But I’m an uncompassionate wingnut, so what do you expect?

  54. Tony permalink
    May 24, 2012 9:25 pm

    I presumed Craig innocent right up until the release of the Fair Work Australia reort, Craig’s subsequent interview with Laurie Oakes, and his comprehensive statement to parliament. Anyone who still believes says Craig’s stories are plausible is a rusted-on useful idiot or is just young and naive.

  55. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 24, 2012 9:40 pm

    The mantra moves constantly Tony.

    First it was “a media beat-up”, then it was “he’s innocent”. Following this there was the “withhold judgement until FWA have completed their investigation” line. When this didn’t go the way of the committed, it reverted to a “media beat-up”, but combined with “Kathy Jackson is a lying slut and Michael Lawler can’t be trusted”.

    It’s now back to “he’s innocent… and don’t bother to talk about any unethical behaviour (unless he’s actually convicted of a crime)”.

    Following his conviction, I think the mantra will become “he still proclaims his innocence, and has appealed. So we should not pre-empt the appeal”

  56. Tony permalink
    May 24, 2012 9:54 pm

    Yes Tom, I’ve noticed a degree of twisting and turning by certain barrackers. It’s to be expected, I suppose. 🙄

  57. el gordo permalink
    May 24, 2012 10:20 pm

    ‘Don’t worry, sreb, the election will come soon enough and all will be well again!’

    We want it before July 1, 2012.

  58. May 24, 2012 10:51 pm

    stupid wingnuts

  59. Bacchus permalink
    May 24, 2012 11:07 pm

    I’m torn HD. Is that a tautology or an axiom? 😆

  60. JAWS permalink
    May 25, 2012 8:47 am

    As pointed out on TV last night

    The best thing Gillard can hope for are police charges against Thomson because then the Media will need to shut up

  61. JAWS permalink
    May 25, 2012 11:21 am

    Interesting point made by my brother in law, who just popped over and is a cop in Sydney HQ, is that because the original credit card merchant slips have been recovered if it was Thomson who signed them then a latent fingerprint will almost certainly be present from when he held them down to sign.

    The porousness of paper is an excellent preserve for skin oils from the fingers and palms. Even after this long.

    Apparently it is usual police procedure not to confront the accused with fingerprint evidence until the very moment before they are charged. So it is not surprising that nothing has leaked.

    Although he is not involved he has heard that the net is closing.

  62. JAWS permalink
    May 25, 2012 11:39 am

    And the reason they don’t confront the accused with print evidence until just before they are charged is usually because they only have an as yet unidentified print and don’t have the suspect’s prints until they charge him and take his prints.

    They don’t always follow someone around waiting for them to discard a glass of water in a restaurant and then “bag it”.

  63. TB Queensland permalink
    May 25, 2012 11:41 am

    There is no presumption of innocence.

    What utter BS!

    Presumption of innocence is the basis of habeus corpus the part of the foundation of our legal system created in England and adopted here … in the 12th century …

  64. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 25, 2012 11:48 am

    Playing the mental health card is pretty low by the government. It is the ALP that has the duty of care, they preselected him for parliament and promoted his credentials as a representative. They’ve kept him exposed to the threat to his health.

    If the ALP is genuinely concerned about Thomson’s welfare they would remove him from the risk, if Thomson was genuinely concerned about his own welfare, he’d remove himself.

  65. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 25, 2012 11:50 am

    That, TB, is exactly what I said. Presumption of innocence is about the prevention of unjustified deprivation of liberty. I am not sure of anyone demanding Thomson be locked up.

    What is being argued is whether he is a fit and proper person to hold parliamentary office. You should know about “fit and proper”. A form of it exists for training organisations and their employees.

  66. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 25, 2012 11:51 am

    You use “habeas corpus” as though it contradicts what I am saying. Do you understand what it means?

  67. Splatterbottom permalink
    May 25, 2012 11:57 am

    Presumption of innocence was something not afforded Nick Greiner or Peter Hollingsworth or John Kerr by the howling hyenas of Labor lunacy.

    It is relevant to whether or not Thomson is convicted in a criminal matter, but wholly irrelevant in determining whether his disgraceful behaviour is debauching our parliament. Labor has chosen to pay him a small fortune so that this sick charade can continue but they should not complain when the public is revolted by the stench of this rotten deal.

    Labor has not only lain down with this dog but taken every unseemly advantage of him. Sure they paid a goodly sum to be able to govern at his pleasure, but they shouldn’t complain about the fleas, the cold sores and the canine syphilis that will dog them for the rest of their days.

  68. JAWS permalink
    May 25, 2012 12:04 pm

    Mmmmmmmmmmmmm

    I better start leading a good life from now on as in my next life I do not want come back as Splatter’s pet dog

  69. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 25, 2012 12:20 pm

    Greiner did with Methrill what Gillard did with Slipper – provided an unsavoury job offer to shore up numbers in minority government.

  70. cassiekey permalink
    May 25, 2012 12:36 pm

    IMHO Gillard should get off her ample backside and do something to sort this mess out.The PM cannot continue to sit on the fence, she has to either support Thomson or FWA, she cannot continue to brush the questions aside with her bog standard reply “it’s for the courts to decide”. It’s looking more unlikely that it will ever go to court, and considering that she is our supreme leader then the buck stops with her, so if the
    Scoundrel in question were to come to any harm then Gillard should take full responsibility. The PM cannot or should not sit by and just blame Abbott.

  71. JAWS permalink
    May 25, 2012 12:49 pm

    Agreed Cassiekey

    Labor complaining about the Coalition is like Woolworths complaining about Coles.

  72. el gordo permalink
    May 25, 2012 12:50 pm

    ‘The PM cannot or should not sit by and just blame Abbott.’

    Hear hear!

  73. JAWS permalink
    May 25, 2012 1:09 pm

    Joel Fitzgibbon should get a job as a standup comedian….

    “Even if Craig Thomson is guilty of everything that’s been alleged … his punishment has far outweighed the crime,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

    So stealing $500,000 from your employer and f**king whores using other peoples money is all forgiven if you give a few TV grabs and a 59 minute bullshit laden address to Parliament.

    Interesting level of “punsishment”…………….

  74. cassiekey permalink
    May 25, 2012 1:21 pm

    Maybe Rudd started the trend, after all he did admit to going to a strip club, and voters didn’t seem too perturbed about that, infact some say it delivered him some more votes.

  75. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 25, 2012 1:46 pm

    The difference, Cassiekey, was the admission, such that it was.

  76. TB Queensland permalink
    May 25, 2012 2:49 pm

    You use “habeas corpus” as though it contradicts what I am saying. Do you understand what it means?

    Not hard to find, James … the point is that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence in any situation …

    … and yes, h/c, does generally apply to actually being “imprisoned” … without supporting evidence …

    You should know about “fit and proper”. A form of it exists for training organisations and their employees.

    Why just select training organisations … it applies to all professions …

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Presumption of innocence was something not afforded Nick Greiner or Peter Hollingsworth or John Kerr by the howling hyenas of Labor lunacy.

    More innuendo … nothing to back up silly regurgitations …

    Had they been innocent … then many careers would have taken a different turn … and laws would not have been modified …

    Dontcha luv, Greiners’s, “only technically corrupt” …

    GREINER

    Greiner and Environment Minister Tim Moore decided to offer Liberal-turned-independent MP Terry Metherell an executive position in the Environmental Protection Authority. If Metherell accepted the position, he would have to resign his parliamentary seat, which the Liberal Party was confident of winning in a by-election. While Metherell initially agreed to the position on 10 April 1992, it was criticised by Labor and the independents, and documents were ultimately released showing he had applied for a job in the Premier’s Department and then been seconded to the EPA, and had applied after the closing date, but was appointed within hours of his application. Greiner was accused of misleading the parliament, and in late April, Labor and the independents passed a no-confidence motion in Greiner’s leadership (though, critically, not against the government) in the Legislative Assembly. The pressure led to Greiner moving that the Assembly refer the matter to ICAC. The inquiry began on 5 May, and following detailed evidence by Metherell that his resignation was part of a package negotiated with Greiner and Moore and the release of Metherell’s diaries, Greiner and minister Brad Hazzard admitted their statements to the inquiry were wrong. Greiner as a witness could not recall 20 key events under investigation, and the inquiry heard that the director-general appointed Metherell when it was discovered he could not legally be appointed to the EPA.[10] On 19 June, ICAC commissioner Ian Temby concluded that while Greiner had not acted criminally and had not set out to be corrupt, he would be seen “by a notional jury as conducting himself contrary to known and recognised standards of honesty and integrity”.[11] Temby found strongest against Environment Minister Tim Moore, a friend of Metherell’s who was central to the offer. However, the Commission did not recommend taking action against the two ministers, saying that this was properly the role of Parliament.[12] Greiner focused on the words “honesty and integrity” and argued he was only “technically corrupt”, but by 21 June, it was clear the independents would support a vote of no confidence in Greiner and Moore. Greiner lodged a case with New South Wales Court of Appeal and argued any such motions would breach natural justice while the appeal was being heard, but Labor and the independents argued that the Parliament was the body which should decide Greiner’s future, and scheduled a vote for 24 June. Additionally, federal Opposition leader John Hewson and the state secretary of the Liberal Party urged him to go as the affair was damaging public support for the party, evidenced by a finding in a Saulwick poll that 59% of voters thought Greiner should resign. Accordingly, Greiner resigned, and was succeeded by John Fahey.[10]

    Greiner successfully appealed against the finding in the New South Wales Court of Appeal, which in a 2-1 vote on 21 August 1992 overturned the ICAC findings.[13] The court found that ICAC had “exceeded its jurisdiction” in ruling against the two ministers[14] and granted “declaratory relief that the Commission’s report was wrong in law”.[15] Following the affair, a parliamentary committee inquiring into ICAC’s powers in December 1992 recommended that Section 9 of the ICAC Act, on which the successful appeal was based, should be repealed as it was too narrow in defining corrupt conduct.[16] While the section was not repealed, a sub-section was ultimately added in 1994 which addressed the behaviour of ministers and members of parliament, and gave legislative enforcement to ministerial and parliamentary codes of conduct.[17]

    … and Hollingsworth’s “I didn’t believe it was sexual abuse” …

    HOLLINGSWORTH

    On 22 April 2001 the Prime Minister, John Howard, announced that Hollingworth would be appointed Governor-General of Australia upon the completion of Sir William Deane’s term. He was the first Christian cleric to hold the post, though precedent existed at a state level, where Aboriginal pastor Doug Nicholls had served as Governor of South Australia. On 29 June 2001, Hollingworth was sworn in as Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force.[14] As the governor-general is the Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Australia, Hollingworth was appointed a Companion of the Order (AC) on 29 June 2001. He served until 28 May 2003, when he resigned in controversial circumstances.[15]

    [edit] Resignation

    In December 2001, allegations were raised that, during his time as Archbishop of Brisbane, Hollingsworth had failed to deal appropriately with sex abuse allegations made against a church teacher at Toowoomba Prep School. That month, the Brisbane Anglican diocese was ordered to pay $834,800 damages to the woman who had been found to have been sexually abused.[16] Hetty Johnston, an advocate for child sex abuse victims, instigated a campaign calling for Hollingsworth to resign. Hollingsworth told the Australian media that, as a newly appointed archbishop at the time, he lacked the experience to handle the matter. He also said he had not believed that the case involved sexual abuse but that he had not done enough to stop abuses occurring.[17] Hollingsworht subsequently apologised to the Toowoomba victim and released a formal statement condemning child sexual abuse but by February 2002, the Opposition was calling for Hollingsworth to be dismissed. Hollingsworth stepped down from his positions as tye Brisbane Lions’ No 1 ticket holder, patron of Barnardos, Kids First Foundation and the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect.[18]

    Phillip Aspinall, Hollingsworth’s successor as archbishop, ordered an inquiry, which concluded that in 1993, Hollingsworth had allowed a known paedophile to continue working as a priest.[19] In May 2003, the report by the Diocese of Brisbane into the handling of the cases was tabled in the Queensland parliament by the Labor Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie.[20] The Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer indicated in early May that Hollingsworth should consider his position and after meeting with John Howard on 11 May, Hollingsworth stood aside.[21] On 28 May 2003, he announced his resignation[22] and his commission as Governor-General was revoked as of 29 May 2003.[23]

    … and finally the weak as piss … pisspot … absolute power corrupts absolutely …

    KERR

    Kerr had another meeting with Fraser (with Whitlam’s approval) on 6 November. At this meeting Fraser increased the pressure on Kerr, advising him that the Opposition would not back down and would not accept any compromise, warning him that, if he did not take action against Whitlam, then the Opposition would begin to make direct public criticism of him for having “failed in his duty”.[6]:p.237-238 Fraser urged Kerr to bring about an election before the end of 1975. The provisions of the Electoral Act meant that the last date on which a 1975 election could be announced was 11 November.

    Kerr appears to have made up his mind on 9 November to dismiss Whitlam. He felt it necessary not to disclose this intention to Whitlam and his ministers because of his fear that Whitlam would advise the head of state, Queen Elizabeth, to terminate Kerr’s commission as Governor-General.[1]:p.331 In so doing, Kerr was aware of the precedent set by Sir Philip Game, the Governor of New South Wales, who had dismissed Jack Lang’s government in 1932. Game had warned Lang in advance that if he, Lang, did not withdraw certain regulations, then he, Game, would dismiss him. This allowed Lang to seek Game’s dismissal if he dared, which he did not.[8]

    On the morning of Tuesday, 11 November, Whitlam phoned Kerr and arranged to see him at 12.45pm after the Remembrance Day ceremonies. Kerr also arranged for Fraser to come “a quarter of an hour later. Mr Fraser was not told why I wanted him to come.”[1]:p.356 Fraser later claimed that Kerr telephoned him[7]:p.292 and asked him whether, if he were commissioned as Prime Minister, he would:
    pass the budget bills,
    call an immediate double dissolution election for both houses of Parliament, and
    make no appointments, initiate no new policies, and conduct no inquiries into the previous government, before such an election.

    Fraser recalled answering “yes” to all these questions. In his memoirs Kerr denied making such a phone call to Fraser, but Fraser was adamant in all subsequent accounts that he did.

    The House of Representatives was suspended at 12:55pm for the luncheon break. Whitlam arrived at Government House at 1pm, 15 minutes late. Fraser had arrived earlier and been shown into another room.[7]:p.356 Whitlam and Kerr met alone in Kerr’s study. Kerr knew that Whitlam intended to ask for a half-Senate election, one which would need to be conducted without supply,[1]:p.357 that is, unlawfully. So, after reconfirming that Whitlam’s intention was to govern without parliamentary supply, Kerr withdrew his commission and served on him the letter of dismissal.[9] Kerr claimed Whitlam then sought to telephone Buckingham Palace to advise Kerr’s dimissal, but Whitlam has always denied this. At a press conference that afternoon he said “The Governor-General prevented me getting in touch with the Queen by just withdrawing the commission immediately”[1]:p.359[10] In an article in Quadrant magazine (March 2005, Volume 49, Number 3), David Smith, Kerr’s Official Secretary, claimed that Whitlam knew of Kerr’s intentions, the Queen had already made her position of non-intervention known to Whitlam and Kerr,[7]:p.329 and Kerr had called a double dissolution in order to be fair to both candidates, sincerely believing that Whitlam could win back government with the necessary majority in both houses.

    … and which week in the last four decades were you supportive of the ALP again …? 🙄

    It is relevant to whether or not Thomson is convicted in a criminal matter, but wholly irrelevant in determining whether his disgraceful behaviour is debauching our parliament.

    Why? – How?

    Labor has chosen to pay him a small fortune so that this sick charade can continue but they should not complain when the public is revolted by the stench of this rotten deal.

    “sick charade” … “the public is revolted by the stench of this rotten deal” – personal opinion, methinks, rather than factual account … consider novella authoring …

    Labor has not only lain down with this dog but taken every unseemly advantage of him. Sure they paid a goodly sum to be able to govern at his pleasure, but they shouldn’t complain about the fleas, the cold sores and the canine syphilis that will dog them for the rest of their days.

    Very biblical terminology … extreme use of adjectives again I see … the vitriolic language, as usual, is a common substitute for the absence of any actual substance of material knowledge or factual information … ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    BTW Thommo doesn’t hold “high office” in government nor did he when the alleged “crimes” were undertaken AND they were against the HSU membership …

    Greiner, Hollingsworth and Kerr ALL held high office and represented THE PEOPLE of Australia (Greiner NSW) at the time they were challenged two of them resigned before they were kicked and one of them lived the remainder of his life in alcoholic misery out of the country because he knew what a fucking stupid ill-informed prat he had been …

    … and if you agree with, James, then presumtion of innocence doesn;t exist for the likes of, Greiner, Hollingsworth and Kerr, so why keep bringing them up?

    Why we’re still a monarchy in 2012 is beyond me anyway!

  77. Splatterbottom permalink
    May 25, 2012 3:12 pm

    Shorter TB: Thomson gets the presumption of innocence but not Greiner or Hollingsworth or Kerr. Because, because …. it’s OK to drive conservatives and their ilk from office but not a sleazy Unionland grub propping up a rotten Labor government. Did I miss something or did you actually have a logical argument in there somewhere, TB?

  78. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 25, 2012 3:16 pm

    Not hard to find, James … the point is that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence in any situation …

    Wrong.

    … and yes, h/c, does generally apply to actually being “imprisoned” … without supporting evidence …

    Half right. It’s without supporting evidence beyond reasonable doubt, although one can still be imprisoned in circumstances justifying it. There are hundreds in remand who are presumed innocent.

    Why just select training organisations … it applies to all professions …

    I selected training organisations as it was appropriate to you. It does apply to “many” professions. Except, I guess Labor parliamentarians, pink batt installers, trade union leaders…

    Greiner, Hollingsworth and Kerr, so why keep bringing them up?

    Because they highlight the hypocrisy of the presumption of innocence argument. All were hounded out of their positions of responsibility on far less bases than those for which I, and apparently many others, expect the resignation of Craig Thomson.

  79. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 25, 2012 3:44 pm

    Personally, I think Greiner deserved plenty of hounding, as did Kerr.

    Greiner was in exactly the same situation as Gillard – minority government. He had a pesky Metherell hanging around. So he appointed him to an attractive, well paid job.

    Regardless of whether Greiner was technically corrupt or not, it was a grubby and outrageous decision, designed to increase the numbers in his minority government and he was rightly hounded for it.

    It has plenty of parallels with the Slipper appointment rather than Thomson. Greiner deserved his hounding and Gillard deserves hers.

  80. TB Queensland permalink
    May 25, 2012 4:39 pm

    There ya go James …

    sp, obviously ToM understands my purpose … fancy asking ME if I have a “logical argument” … you’re the one with the sickly adjectives and no supporting evidence for your rantings … multiple rants every day … some of us do a rant every couple of months … not every hour … on the hour – hope your being paid well … 😉

    … my purpose for the long post (longest in my posting history I think) – not my usual style … was to provide evidence contradicting the nonsense you post … even though I know you’ll just ignore it …

    … Gillard & Co have done nothing that Abbott & The Angelic Host wouldn’t have done given similar circumstances … to brand one lot as “rotten” etc … is pure politics … they are all out for their own agenda … at the expense of ordinary Australians … the LibNats won’t come out of this mess with clean hands either … maybe you should review The Art of War and the politics of Machieavelli (The Prince?) … 🙂

  81. Neil of Sydney permalink
    May 25, 2012 4:46 pm

    the LibNats won’t come out of this mess with clean hands either

    What do you think an Opposition should do re: Thomson???

  82. TB Queensland permalink
    May 25, 2012 4:57 pm

    What do you think an Opposition should do re: Thomson???

    Allow the police, FWA, courts to do their jobs … and get on with opposing government policy they disagree with …

  83. Neil of Sydney permalink
    May 25, 2012 5:19 pm

    Allow the police, FWA, courts to do their jobs “

    I think that is what they are doing. They waited many years for the FWA report. It does appear if there was political interference to delay the report. This delay implies lots of stuff wrong otherwise it would have been released years ago.

  84. TB Queensland permalink
    May 25, 2012 6:02 pm

    It does appear if there was political interference to delay the report

    You have some proof of this? Or are you just adding to the noise of innuendo?

    The words — might, could, should, maybe, appears, I think, looks like, must be … all demonstrate opinion, assumption and guesswork … don’t worry people do it all the time … I spent a lot of doing audits and investigations … problem with speculation is that it is just that …

  85. May 25, 2012 6:12 pm

    Tony Abbott says “we should be kinder and gentler to each other”

    jesus has landed.

  86. Neil of Sydney permalink
    May 25, 2012 6:30 pm

    You have some proof of this?”

    No proof. But i am guessing if it was delayed we will find out one day.

    It would have been interesting what the ALP would have done if it was a Coalition politician. I do not think they would have been saying that the Coalition politician needs a presumption of innocence. They would have been demanding his resignation. Just like they did with Hollingsworth.

  87. TB Queensland permalink
    May 25, 2012 6:58 pm

    Tony Abbott says “we should be kinder and gentler to each other”

    jesus has landed.

    Allefknlulya!

    No proof. But i am guessing if it was delayed we will find out one day.

    Do His desciples know?

    ++++++++++++++++++++

    You humans :mrgreen:

  88. TB Queensland permalink
    May 25, 2012 7:03 pm

    er Noddy, Hollingsworth resigned … he falls into Category Pell for me … in a secular society (arrgh) it is not fitting that a religious person be appointed Governor General anyway … especially one who demonstrated such awful judgement regarding sexual assault … talk about double hypocrisy … only in Howards “reign” …

  89. Meta permalink
    May 26, 2012 5:03 am

    (May the Court of Popular Opinion remind an expectant Counsel for the Offence that said practitioner is under a positive ethical-professional duty to bring any and all relevant extant authority, even that which Constitutively may be adverse to Counsel’s line of argument, to the Court of Popular Opinion’s attention at the earliest available opportunity, and only thence locally seek to distinguish, or more broadly to seek reform, lest that practitioner be considered to be misleading the Court of Popular Opinion in representing any instant case for hypocrisy.)

  90. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 26, 2012 3:54 pm

    IMHO Gillard should get off her ample backside and do something to sort this mess out.

    But it’s only a mess in the eyes of braying conservatives and a campaigning media, everyone else is bored shitless and sick of hearing the name craig thomson.

    The PM cannot continue to sit on the fence, she has to either support Thomson or FWA, she cannot continue to brush the questions aside with her bog standard reply “it’s for the courts to decide”.

    Why not? The bog standard is the correct process. Because liberal supporters are impatient for a new election they think parliamentarians should become the new judge and jury? Heaven forbid, our MPs aren’t even a true representation of the Australian community.

  91. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 26, 2012 8:25 pm

    It’s amazing to me that some people maintain that Thomson is the victim of some conspiracy, a set up.

    The FWA report was mainly conducted under the supervision of Tim Lee, a former ALP political advisor.

    It was finished under the watch of FWA President Iain Ross, former ACTU official.

    But some continue with the ‘what about Lawler’ crap.

    I’d find in informative if one of the barrackers addressed the Lee/Ross involvement.

  92. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 27, 2012 8:30 pm

    Interesting that I can’t find anyone to explain how the FWA report came to form part of a huge conspiracycould have been influenced by Michael Lawler, when it was supervised by former ALP political advisor Tim Lee, and finalised and finished under current FWA President and former ACTU official Iain Ross.

    Some barrackers just don’t do enough research to support their conspiracy theories.

  93. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 1:06 pm

    So how did Michael Lawler manage to get FWA President Iain Ross (former ACTU official) and Division General Manager Tim Lee (former union official and ALP Ministerial Advisor) to endorse the report on Craig Thomson?

  94. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:35 pm

    Did anyone hear the interview with Fair Work Australia President Iain Ross (Federal Court Judge, former ACTU official too), about how there is no evidence of Michael Lawler being involved.

    He’s not even going to investigate!

    What would he know?

  95. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 6:43 pm

    For TB

    …some continue with the ‘what about Lawler’ crap.

    I’d find in informative if one of the barrackers addressed the Tim Lee/Iain Ross involvement.

  96. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 7:51 pm

    I see (former ACTU official) Iain Ross provide some clarification about the structure of FWA, he put paid to the nonsense about the ability of Michael Lawler being in a position to influence the HSU investigation.

    Interestingly he’s quite critical of the time taken to complete the investigation. Most of the time was during the reign of (former ALP advisor) General Manager Tim Lee. It’s now Commissioner Lee, of course. He was appointed a Commissioner directly from overseeing the (prolonged) HSU investigation.

    Services rendered?

  97. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 28, 2012 9:31 pm

    I’d find in informative if one of the barrackers addressed the Tim Lee/Iain Ross involvement.

    You might, but you aren’t directing the discussion and people don’t have to follow your talking points.

    Feel free to do so yourself.

    I see (former ACTU official) Iain Ross provide some clarification about the structure of FWA, he put paid to the nonsense about the ability of Michael Lawler being in a position to influence the HSU investigation.

    No he didn’t tomM, he said he had ‘seen’ no evidence, that is quite different from there being no evidence, just because he has seen none, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. He also said that he could not adjudicate on it anyway, that is for a federal court, he does not have the power or authority to do so. He also said that Lawler has ‘taken an oath’ as if that somehow means that Lawler could not be guilty of corruption and conflict of interest and prejudice simply because of that. I think Iain Ross is not living in the real world where oath swearers and public officials are regularly convicted in the courts for corruption, bribery and thievery.

    And Lawler seems to have been the one throwing his weight about. Too fkn gutless to front the senate inquiry too, I hope his part in this fiasco is brought up in the federal court.

    Health union allegations turn a brawl into open warfare:

    …A copy of Mr Lawler’s complaint, dated December 21, has been obtained by the Herald. ”I make this complaint in my private capacity albeit that my official status has been brought into the matter by virtue of the actions of others,” he wrote…

    …Ms Glen complained in writing to Justice Geoffrey Giudice, the president of Fair Work Australia, on December 7. Ms Glen said she received an angry call from Mr Lawler about her resignation. ”I felt bullied and upset after the phone call,” her complaint said.
    A week later Mr Hayes, the NSW divisional secretary of the union, complained to Justice Giudice.
    Mr Hayes said that on September 26 he ran into Mr Lawler who seemed ”agitated” and made accusations including that Mr Hayes must have been aware of Mr Williamson’s lifestyle and that Mr Williamson ”is f—ed and if he thinks he is playing with amateurs he is kidding himself…

    Sounds real ‘hands off’ doesn’t it?
    Guess we’ll have to wait for the courts to decide.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/health-union-allegations-turn-a-brawl-into-open-warfare-20120202-1qvov.html#ixzz1wA0FzUVh

  98. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 9:56 pm

    There I was thinking that I had this thread on my own AO.

    Iain Ross put paid to a couple of the conspiracies that have been advanced by the ill-informed, and I don’t include you in that number.

    Ross clearly outlined the difference between the administrative function and the tribunal. He pointed out that the General Manger has responsibility for the administrative function, and that he has no authority in this. Clearly if the president has no authority, a vice president has even less.

    He pointed to the unsatisfactory length of time the investigation took, and that this had sullied the reputation of the institution.

    Ross said he had nothing to investigate in respect of Lawler, he said there was no evidence.

    So what we have is a former ACTU official complaining about the administration of a former ALP advisor.

    That’s the main conclusion, nothing about Lawler, and it’s time for those that engaged in the ill-informed “baseless speculation” about Lawler to provide some actual evidence.

  99. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 28, 2012 10:06 pm

    Seems to me Lawler made a private complaint, in which he also noted his position. Corrupt!!!

  100. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 28, 2012 10:42 pm

    Clearly if the president has no authority, a vice president has even less.

    So what’s he doing making complaints to the police in a supposed ‘private’ capacity, what kind of BS is that? Then he bullies and threatens the complainants to the FWA.

    That is not someone acting without authority.

    He doesn’t get to have a private capacity when he is so intimately involved with a person the organisation is investigating. He has to step aside completely. He has to be impartial and he has to appear to be impartial.

    Why is this conflict of interest so difficult for you to grasp?

    Ross clearly outlined the difference between the administrative function and the tribunal.

    And by his actions, Lawler has breached them both, he has clearly been an active player in the tribunal arm and a very biased and prejudiced observer in the administrative one.

  101. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 28, 2012 10:44 pm

    Seems to me Lawler made a private complaint, in which he also noted his position. Corrupt!!!

    The corruption is in not stepping aside while his partner is being investigated, and actively interfering in the process

  102. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 29, 2012 9:29 am

    On ABC this morning they also note that iain ross says he cannot adjudicate on Lawler who is a separate judiciary, only parliament has that authority, also the evidence that has ‘not been seen’ by ross is in the hands of the ABC.

    Turns out that Lawler is not a powerless 2nd in charge, he has absolute power of his own, and only answerable to parliament and a federal court. The boss of FWA is not Lawler’s boss.
    The only people that can question Lawler are those sitting in parliament, but just when that could happen Lawler takes off on long leave to avoid the process.

  103. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 29, 2012 9:45 am

    People seem to ignore the fact that Lawler is a sworn judicial officer, as such he had an duty to inform police of a suspected breach of the law.

    He would have been negligent in his duty had he not taken this action.

    As I’ve said, all we have is a former ACTU official (Iain Ross) being highly critical of the administration of a former ALP advisor (Tim Lee).

    Still, Lawler’s action has nothing to do with the fact that an independent statutory body has found that Craig Thomson abused his position of trust.

  104. Splatterbottom permalink
    May 29, 2012 9:46 am

    “The corruption is in not stepping aside while his partner is being investigated, and actively interfering in the process”

    That may be imprudence, but it is not corruption.

    Lawler better get ready for the full force of the Labor hate machined mongrels bearing down on him, not for what he has done but in order to distract attention from the actually corrupt Thomson. That is moral corruption.

  105. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 29, 2012 1:43 pm

    So Lawler has shacked up with a younger woman, and perhaps exercised a little poor judgment as a result.

    ‘There but for the grace of god…’

  106. JAWS permalink
    May 29, 2012 1:58 pm

    Does the bump in government support in the Newspoll mean 2% of voters were convinced by Craig Thomson’s address ?

  107. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 29, 2012 2:03 pm

    2% of men thought – “if he can get away with that excuse… maybe I’m off the hook…”

  108. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 29, 2012 2:33 pm

    Geezus, Kittylitter, you’ve been informed more than once that Lawler is with the judicial arm of FWA and the HSU stuff was being investigated by the administrative arm. They are related only in name.

    We don’t yet know the content of the stuff reported by Lawler to the police (disclosing that he was with FWA but reporting as a private citizen) but it may well be physical threats or the like. Should he not report such a thing? Does such reporting automatically render him guilty of interference?

    I just love the constant “presumption of innocence” crap with Thomson when we have most of the evidence compared with “corruption” when we know nothing other than someone is shagging someone else.

  109. el gordo permalink
    May 29, 2012 4:09 pm

    ‘FAIR Work Australia was advised three years ago that it should consider referring the investigation into the Health Services Union and embattled MP Craig Thomson to police.

    ‘An email obtained by the Coalition in Senate Estimates shows FWA was advised on June 30, 2009 the day before it began formal operations that it should devise a “clear plan” for referral to authorities including police and professional licensing bodies.’

    From the Oz.

  110. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 29, 2012 10:16 pm

    So apparently Thommo still attends caucus. That’s kind of odd for a suspended ALP member.

  111. Bacchus permalink
    May 29, 2012 11:22 pm

    You have some sort of proof of this James? Something not obviously photoshopped? 😉

  112. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 29, 2012 11:32 pm

    I said apparently….. Is it false?

  113. Bacchus permalink
    May 29, 2012 11:49 pm

    LOL James – you’re fkn kidding right? Put a statement out there that Craig Thomson is apparently “attending caucus meetings” and then expect me to prove you wrong. You’ll make a good Lieberal politician one day James 😉

  114. Bacchus permalink
    May 29, 2012 11:52 pm

    Perhaps you’d like to take on proving this Peter Wicks report is wrong?

    http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/thomson-6-the-falling-few-and-the-fall-guy/

    Is it false? 😆

  115. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 30, 2012 4:41 am

    Bacchus this blog is hardly a bastion of accurate reporting. As for Wixxy, I’ve read a lot of what he’s put out and it seems pretty evidence free. A lot of supposition.

  116. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 30, 2012 5:26 am

    By the way, Bacchus, how is it obviously photoshopped?

  117. Bacchus permalink
    May 30, 2012 7:45 am

    How is what “obviously photoshopped” James? You’re an evidence free zone yourself 🙄

  118. James of North Melbourne permalink
    May 30, 2012 8:17 am

    You inferred that the circulating pic was obviously photoshopped. How so?

  119. May 30, 2012 8:17 am

    I think it’s quite obvious, even to the untrained eye, that the non-existent photograph has clearly been photoshopped. and I might have the evidence to disprove it!

  120. May 30, 2012 8:18 am

    I thought it was a poster? Have you seen the powerpoint version?

  121. JAWS permalink
    May 30, 2012 8:51 am

    From Bacchus’ Link…….

    “……..HESTA is the Industry Super Fund for the health industry. With the irregularities that we have shown, until all these matters have been thoroughly investigated, it may be of some concern to those who have their retirement savings currently sitting in a HESTA account that Kathy Jackson remains a trustee of this fund………….”

    Exactly………………and that’s why we need a Royal Commission into the entire Trade Union movement and ALL their activities in relation to Super Funds.

  122. JAWS permalink
    May 30, 2012 8:52 am

    Other than that one is more likely to find Harold Holt than any evidence in anything Wixx writes about

  123. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 30, 2012 9:51 am

    Bacchus provides a link that contains some mud, who knows what the payment includes? Was Jackson required to move house? Did it include cost of providing her own accommodation for travel?

    The critical point missed is that it does nothing to mitigate the 200 adverse findings FWA made against Thomson.

  124. May 30, 2012 10:14 am

    Gotta love Thommo. Just when everybody decides to back off and give the guy some space, he tries to play funny buggers in the House. Straight back onto the front page. Fckwit.

  125. el gordo permalink
    May 30, 2012 10:16 am

    Craig is not too bright.

  126. JAWS permalink
    May 30, 2012 10:19 am

    I’m a bit mystified as to why we are even bothering talking about Kathy Jackson. If she’s a greedy crim then she can go into the slammer as well.

    So far all that seems to have been claimed is that she gets paid too much. Then an allegation that her husband interfered in the investigation into the Super Grub Thomson. Which has been denied by people within FWA who don’t appear to have any reason to lie when questioned about the allegation.

    Talk about a gigantic “Look Over There”

    The most amusing thing is Thomson asking the Media to back off. He put himself into the position he’s in. He can now just bend over and take it as far as I’m concerned.

    I’d have more sympathy for a thief who steals a Mercedes. At least then I’d know the owner of the Merc probably does not empty bed pans for a living.

    Thomson can go f**k himself…………………..for a change.

  127. JAWS permalink
    May 30, 2012 11:06 am

    Looks like Thomson might be very busy this Saturday

    http://www.scarletalliance.org.au/events

  128. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 30, 2012 1:50 pm

    The mud throwing is always interesting, and if Jackson was in parliament, we’d all be even more interested. So I think I’ll just say prosecute her if she’s done anything illegal.

    But she isn’t in parliament, so it should be treated as just another one of those unsavoury union activities You know, like the Saiezeriya fiasco, or the involvement of illegal bikie gangs in a prominent ALP affiliated union, or the outrageous industrial behaviour on the Westgate Bridge upgrade.
    It should get the attention from barrackers just like all those other union activities.

Go on say something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: