Thomson still in trouble
I note some comments relate to how well Thomson spoke and in doing so fail to note that he didn’t answer the questions raised in the FWA findings. Good oratory abilities aren’t restricted to the honest folk alone – obviously!
He went on the attack but did so sans ammo. No time and date of supposed conspiracies, no collaborating witnesses, no detail. No believable answer for the mobile phone calls to Escort agencies and no explanation of huge sums of HSU money sidelined to the Dobel campaign.
And he has the temerity to say Abbott has damaged democracy….FFS!
Windsor, fighting for his pension, said the parliament should not act as judge and jury against Mr Thomson.
Yes it should. I can’t see how he isn’t in contempt of the House.
“I think due process should take place,” he said.It has. The body set up by the ALP to vet this type of behaviour has investigated the matter and have found against him. Mr Wilkie said while the Thomson saga “stinks”, he should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
“So unless the findings against him have been tested in a properly constituted court, where he has the opportunity to defend himself, we must accord him the presumption of innocence no matter how much that grates,” he said.He hasn’t been charged with breaking any laws yet so the properly constituted court and the presumption of innocence aren’t relevant. He had the opportunity to defend himself during the FWA investigation and his defence was found to be unbelievable. He had the chance to explain his case to the House and he didn’t The Coalition have no choice but to pursue the matter to the point of satisfactory resolution as while it festers, the country isn’t being governed. Albanese seeks moral equivalence between Thomson’s seemingly never ending litany of rorting union members funds and sordid dalliances with escorts and MP Craig Kelly’s accountant being tardy in notifying ASIC of Company changes. Kelly says the Accountant was sick and in hospital and I’m sure if the matter was pursued evidence would be forthcoming that that was the case. No evidence yet on any of Thomson’s claims and I doubt if there will be. Thomson tried the “It’s not just me” defence with claims Jackson drives a volvo and has been on trips overseas that didn’t tie in with Union business. And…? Senator Brandis said Mr Thomson could not be believed, and should be made accountable for misleading the House.
“If Mr Thomson misled the parliament, and it seems an almost irresistible conclusion that he does given the profound implausibility of his claims and the lack of evidence for them, then he committed the breach of privilege yesterday,” he told ABC radio. “Not by conduct which pre-dated his time as a member of parliament but yesterday, when he lied to the House of Representatives.”But Mr Fitzgibbon said Mr Thomson’s statement had injected enough doubt into the allegations facing him that he should be allowed to await his day in court.
“I thought Craig Thomson gave a very persuasive case,” Mr Fitzgibbon told ABC Radio. “I thought he spoke with conviction. He gave plausible explanations as to the allegations and I think he proved these issues are complex.I guess Joel has to say that but I ask you, how does he say it with a straight face? Meanwhile Gillard, who has already found him guilty by kicking him out of the Labor Party says she had been presented with a “summary” of Mr Thomson’s hour-long speech to parliament yesterday but declined to comment on the address.
“Mr Thomson put his statement to the parliament and that was a decision for him,” she said. “It’s not for the parliament to set itself up as a court or jury.”I simply don’t believe Gillard when she says she was presented with a summary of his speech. Whatever Thomson was about to say in the House was of extreme importance to the ALP and I would say that his words were tested and pulled apart by lawyers and politicians for days to ensure it didn’t say anything that could be proven wrong which is why he failed to give any specific facts that could be checked. There is no way the government would just let Thomson write his own speech and deliver it without a tick from the ALP heavies. And the whole sorry saga just goes on and on. .
Facebook
Twitter
Well he blamed every one but the nuns at the nearby convent. Like so many of todays Australians blame is not something that he would accept as his own. I am just waiting for that last but not least quote… “My Dad used to tell me what to do and Mum didn’t breast feed me”. Good chance, with everyone pointing in that direction, he’ll go on record as mentally unable to mount a reasonable defence and walk away from the whole show. With so much out there in the public domain you can bet a trial by jury is impossible.
Gillard would not have left the country unless she was 100% sure Thomson would not do the right thing ie, resign his seat after admitting his errors. I am confident she knew what he was going to say, and that apologies were not going to be part of his speech.
I knew a person like Thomson – totally incapable of admitting error and therefore, totally incapable of accepting responsibility for anything done. That person was also willing to swear that what was actually done yesterday was not done at all.
I suspect Thomson believes what he said is true – in other words he too is delusional, and is not knowingly lying.
Consequently, I believe that if charged, he will evade trial or conviction by pleading he was suffering from mental impairment and therefore, did not know the nature and quality of his conduct or, did not know that his conduct was wrong.
I suspect this debacle has some way to run.
“suffering from mental impairment and therefore, did not know the nature and quality of his conduct or, did not know that his conduct was wrong.”
It’s funny how a few drinks will do that to you and it has become quite a defence to everything but drink driving. That simple fact is why drink drivers drive…..inability make a rational decision. Funny how the law is framed to exclude that defence in drink driving. If I am drunk and steal a car it is possible to be found not guilty of the theft by way of that defence, but I will be found guilty of exceeding blood alcohol levels whilst driving that car. Not that that has much to do with Thomson’s matter….he doesn’t need a few drinks for people to think he’s mentally impaired or a crook. He just gets up and tells it as it isn’t, after he has been caught with his hand in the biscuit tin.
One does not rise to leadership positions through naivity.
I sat through that Academy award performance yesterday and I was impressed, never have I seen in my experience a more stunning rehearsed performance.
I am not always impressed with the media and trials by media but in this case, the facts of the case argue at complete odds to the member for Dobell and he made it a media issue when he attempted defamation to close down reporting claims about his conduct and then tells everyone the paper settled when it was him (or his backers) who paid costs..
The man claims robbery, to wit identity theft but lodges no police complaint. The man claims virtue by bringing transparency to the HSU but does not go to police to report missing monies on his watch.
Then the claim that massage parlours and brothels must have tapes of visitors when the events took place in hotel rooms, was pure gold.
Bugger the less than 10,000 dollars spent on sex, half a bloody million dollars is missing.
That was rubbish, he should face an enquiry and answer to allegations, not with innuendo, with substantiated evidence.
Have you ever watched Paul Murray on Sky? On Monday night Paul said exactly what I was saying to my wife – where is the actual denial? “I didn’t use union funds to sleep with pros.” for example.
But the best part was Mark Latham – he showed a lot of wit – I think he is on every Monday night. The exchanges between him and Minchin were great.
Here’s some of what Latham said…
“Well, you know, I was part of a team effort where we drove the Governor-General of the country from office and even better than that, the Labor Party drove John Kerr from the same office basically because he was pisspot and unfit for office and did the wrong thing in sacking the Whitlam Government, so you know, the Labor Party has a rich history, a proud history of driving mongrels from office and no one said, oh, no, John Kerr, presumption of innocence! There’s been no court, there’s been no charges, there’s been no conviction. Maybe he’s a drunk and he embarrassed us at the Melbourne Cup, he sacked the Whitlam Government but no, no, no, presumption of innocence or Peter Hollingsworth, presumption of innocence. Or any number of a dozen ministers in the Howard years that we were trying to drum out of office and out of Parliament as quickly as possible. No one said, oh, no, presumption of innocence. I heard Jenny Macklin talking about presumption of innocence. She’s standing up there chasing Michael Wooldridge one time about crook MRI tenders. She never said oh, look, he’s done all these wrong things but Mr Speaker, presumption of innocence. He’s really not such a bad chap and we’ll let him off on this occasion. So the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy. Thomson should be judged on a moral standard not a criminal standard and on that moral standard he’s as guilty as sin.”
Cav,
I agree with Latham, (shit a flying pig just shat on me shoulder and they’re wearing thermal undies in hell, the man has matured in intellect and his wit is becoming excellent in dissection), our political system is designed to protect politicians from vexatious attacks whether legal or other of a threatening nature. That is what privilege is all about and why it should be sacrosanct up to the point it is misused.
The cry of him being hounded to explanation, is not relevant, he sits in parliament on the very statements he has made, he has not only misled parliament, he has misled the electorate which voted for him. In the public arena there are very clear statements contradicting the veracity of his claims and hence his right to represent an electorate in parliament as a fit person to do so.
This mechanism is there not for lies or falsehoods or deceit, it is there so that a politician may speak to the truth on relevant matters to his peers as well as Australia in general and he is judged on their accuracy, this is the closest thing we to impeachment and lieing under privilege in parliament is no different to lieing in court.