Thompson cleared but not really
So the NSW police find Thompson has no case to answer on fraud allegations. I would say there is no case of fraud simply because the HSU Union doesn’t have hard and fast rules on the use of members monies. Ie, this sort of shit has being going on for years and unions think it’s OK.
If the police had found any evidence that someone else had forged his signature and produced his drivers licence as proof of ID then that person would be subject to fraud charges.
So that that makes Thompson guilty. Not of any crime but of being a low-life who, while in a position of trust, used members hard earned money for sexual gratification and then publicly denied it.
The Coalition has vowed to continue their pursuit of Thompson and so they should.
Facebook
Twitter
That was the same conclusion I drew after reading/hearing why the police were not pursuing the allegations.
There was no fraud committed because the holder of the card used it.
If I was a member of the union forking out for this rorting of members’ subscriptions I’d be pretty cranky.
Did anyone see that glasshouse surrounded by sinners with stones?
At the end of the day NSW police may have jurisdictional difficulties with where the possible criminal activity took place, hence the referral of documents to Victoria Police. If the “activities” were in fact criminal offences that occurred under Victorian law, ie a fraud on a Victorian entity, then NSW Police would not investigate. We may not have heard the last of this saga. The latest news on using credit cards issued to him, by a business that supplies a service to the union he headed, smacks of either accepting a bribe to ensure acceptance of a tender or extortion to ensure provision of services are extended to the tenderer. On a grander scale you only have to refer to the Wheat Board’s effort to secure sales to Iraq. The Govt of the day probably won’t see a problem with that considering they paid out millions in an effort to secure one vote in an effort to put on the Soccer match of the year.
“accepting a bribe to ensure acceptance of a tender or extortion to ensure provision of services are extended to the tenderer.”
Par for the course in many commercial transactions, especially those conducted by corporations who escape scrutiny through lax regulation. Remember Nugan Hand Bank?
Well, Thompson may get away with it (I wouldn’t bet on that in the long term), but he may also have stuffed the rort for a lot of union heads and have killed the Labor party in the process. much of Labors money comes from unions and I suspect a lot of union members are rethinking their contributions right now.
Frankly, a smart move on Tony Abbotts part, just after he storms home in the next election would be a royal commission into the abuse of union funds. looking out for the worker, killing a major source of income for the Labor party and potentially jailing a number of Labor powerbrokers all in one hit.
“Par for the course in many commercial transactions…”
Oh okay, it’s confirmed then. Using union members’ hard earned cash for personal ‘pleasures of the flesh’ and accepting an inducement to award a contract is fine by 17 bobby red-herring dog-vomit.
Says a lot about the dissolute left – just imagine the frothing at the mouth and screaming in feigned outrage if one of Abbott’s parliamentary team had used, for example, cash in a trust fund they administered to pay for prostitutes for himself and a few mates and hit the piss at Florentines week in and week out.
There is no defence of either – it’s theft plain and simple. Oh, except in 17 bobby red-herring’s ‘screw the workers’ world.
I think you’ve misundertood his comment on that one Pete…..I believe it was merely an observation of, and a dig at common business practices. I don’t know why he pinpointed corporations though…..I am aware of a number of small and not so small businesses that offer and accept goods or services in exchange for goods or services or “favours”. In the world of private enterprise it is an effective tool in ensuring good business relations, something like a barter system that keeps the wheels turning and the tax man wondering. For those who have enjoyed working for Government bodies and agencies it is almost foreign to their nature because in the world of public service it is illegal to deal in this way. That is not to say it doesn’t happen, but most do not understand that this practice knows no boundaries. We have all heard of people in positions of power copping a quid and if you travel a bit outside Oz it is a business all of its own. The hard bit to swallow is using other peoples money to participate in the rort.
“other people’s money” includes shareholders money. There has always been a double standard operating. The strange thing is that in private enterprise it’s considered entrepreneurial. It also seems OK to make the taxpayer pay when through greed and corruption, corporations “too big to fail” go belly up and are bailed out by government.
There are a lot of successful business people out there Robert that would agree that greasing palms is much more palatable than kissing rses to get things done and generally quicker and more likely to keep your banker off your back. The majority of us don’t think it is right, but then these entrepreneurs are a minority group and well looked after (its the Australian way). To spend a few thousand to ensure making a million seems like good business sense to them and not a misuse of funds (as Peter put it), and the receiver is happy to bend over for the cash, trips, girls whatever. It works all over the world no matter what religion or political persuasion has control.
Thompson and his mates may be about to find that it is time to come clean.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-strike-force-to-probe-health-union-20110912-1k5pn.html
“…..I believe it was merely an observation of, and a dig at common business practices.”
Possibly Bob. But he could have written something along the lines of “I deplore the casual use of unionists money for the personal enrichment of officials and to pay for their tawdry nights on the tiles.” And then suggested his outrage also extended to similar practices by those in business. But no. He jumped straight into the fallacious argument of ‘two wrongs make a right’ in a knee jerk attempt to deflect criticism of the left’s further dissolution.
He’s at it again claiming “that in private enterprise it’s considered entrepreneurial.”
Well that’s not the case in any ‘private enterprise’ I’ve worked for, even my own where it’s my money. The misuse of funds is just that, misuse.
The rest of his drivel regarding ‘too big to fail’ is just further evidence he can’t bear it when the left, in this case a bunch of greedy thieving union officials, is criticised.
If you you squeeze watermelons hard enough they do tend to dribble a bit, Pete.