Skip to content
Advertisements

CRAIG THOMSON: GUILTY AS CHARGED?

October 15, 2012

Who can forget the confected crocodile tears of disgraced Labor MP Craig Thomson (pictured above) when he appeared in Parliament to tearfully reject allegations that he rorted his employer, the Health Services Union, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

With the Gillard counting on Thomson’s vote to retain Government, the scandal-ridden MP enjoyed the complete confidence of the Prime Minister despite allegations that he misused union members funds on lavish lunches, prostitutes and ATM cash withdrawals totaling in excess of $200,000.

But the disgusting sordid affair does not end there. No it does not.

When Fair Work Australia handed down the FINDINGS of its four year investigation into the HSU, the Gillard Cheer Squad and Thomson apologists insisted that Thomson was innocent, with some protesting that the FINDINGS of the FWA investigation weren’t actually “findings” at all, but just “allegations.”

Well now there can be no denying that Thomson does have a case to answer with those allegations now progressing to charges that Thomson will have to answer in civil court proceedings.

The claim covers cash advances totalling more than $102,337.45.

FWA is seeking to fine Mr Thomson for these rorts and to recoup the misappropriated funds.

The statement of claim lists a number of escort services Mr Thomson allegedly used, including “Young Blondes,” Melbourne’s “Boardroom” Escort Agency, and a brothel called “Tiffany’s.”

The claim also includes 37 alleged breaches of rules for officers of registered organisations such as unions, and 25 alleged breaches of the rules of the Health Services Union, which Mr Thomson headed.

Now that charges have been laid, the onus will now be on Mr Thomson to prove that he is innocent, rather than the litigants having to prove that he is guilty.

All those who professed that Mr Thomson “doesn’t have a case to answer” should be hanging their collective heads in shame over their partisan support of this shoddy character.

 

 

Advertisements
110 Comments leave one →
  1. TB Queensland permalink
    October 15, 2012 7:17 pm

    Do I detect a “vote of no confidence” motion coming on?

  2. October 15, 2012 7:23 pm

    You’ll have to wait until Thursday TB. That’s when the Opposition always moves their censure motions etc…

    I’m not sure why. Maybe the MP’s bar opens early on Thursday…?

  3. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    October 15, 2012 7:25 pm

    Does Gillard have “complete confidence” in Thomson?
    Is she glad she appointed Slipper as Speaker?
    Does she owe Wilkie an apology for breaking her written word?
    Did she represent (to regulators) her boyfriend’s a slush fund as something other than that?
    Did she witness a power of attorney without actually seeing it signed?
    Is it a tax?
    Does anyone actually believe Gillard can be trusted?

  4. TB Queensland permalink
    October 15, 2012 7:29 pm

    All those who professed that Mr Thomson “doesn’t have a case to answer” should be hanging their collective heads in shame over their partisan support of this shoddy character.

    In fairness … thinking a person has a case to answer doesn’t make it so, it has to have evidence to support a charge … that evidence is the subject of “discovery” by defence (to build a defence …

    … some of us who were “chastised” by person’s I’d rather not name here … but I will anyway – ToM and sp and the late Wally and Tosy Farnham and if I remember correctly, James (I’m not going! I will be a lawyer one day) Farnham … only defended the “due process of law” available” to anyone here … NOT Thomson’s guilt or innocence …

    People are charged and sometimes (more often than not surprisingly) found not guilty …

    Now that charges have been laid, the onus will now be on Mr Thomson to prove that he is innocent, rather than the litigants having to prove that he is guilty.
    I found this paragraph to be a bit odd too, ol' mate … in Oz WE are innocent until proven guilty … the only western country I know that is the reverse is France and that works really well if you want to get rid of Robber Barons via Madame Guillotine … 😛

  5. October 15, 2012 7:29 pm

    No bullet points? Getting lazy in yer old age Tom…? 😉

  6. TB Queensland permalink
    October 15, 2012 7:30 pm

    CORRECTION

    Now that charges have been laid, the onus will now be on Mr Thomson to prove that he is innocent, rather than the litigants having to prove that he is guilty.

    I found this paragraph to be a bit odd too, ol’ mate … in Oz WE are innocent until proven guilty … the only western country I know that is the reverse is France and that works really well if you want to get rid of Robber Barons via Madame Guillotine …

  7. TB Queensland permalink
    October 15, 2012 7:31 pm

    ToM

    This thread is not about The Prime Minister …

  8. TB Queensland permalink
    October 15, 2012 7:32 pm

    sreb, whizz my correction off too … thanks …

  9. October 15, 2012 7:36 pm

    I think in a civil court TB, if you are charged with rorting funds, ie “fraud” and the litigant has evidence ( ie: credit card receipts etc) then I think the onus is on the defendant to prove their innocence.

    Happy to be corrected if this isn’t the case…

    But if I was Craig, I’d be shitting myself.

    He claims he is guilty of no wrongdoing, to me that just smacks of someone who felt that the union credit card could be used for any purchases or cash withdrawals he liked, no doubt as exemplified by his boss Williamson.

  10. Mr.negative permalink
    October 15, 2012 7:41 pm

    He has not been charged with anything..it is a civil case..not criminal…I would be very careful with your tweets, what you believe to be certain and comments.if I were some people and I hope you filter properly.

  11. Mr.negative permalink
    October 15, 2012 7:44 pm

    PS – not they don’t have credit card reciepts and the one posted in the fairfax news papers is alledged to be false – the number 211 means it was not approved..so it was discarded..no money…but keep trying though.

  12. October 15, 2012 7:50 pm

    “If I were some people…”

    You mean, you’re not some people…?

  13. October 15, 2012 7:53 pm

    “they don’t have credit card reciepts and the one posted in the fairfax news papers is alledged to be false..”

    “alledged”

    …Chuckle…

  14. Tom R permalink
    October 15, 2012 7:54 pm

    But if I was Craig, I’d be shitting myself.

    Actually reb, if I was Graig, I’d be shitting, Craig might even be laughing right now 😉

    File Title: General Manager of Fair Work Australia v Graig Thomson

    fckn amateurs

  15. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    October 15, 2012 7:57 pm

    Yes, those mindless types who argued that Thomson had “no case to answer”, also changed their mind and now support off shore processing.

    But here’s a summary of Thomson’s “defence”!

    I didn’t do it. NEVER! NO NO NO NO NO!!

    It was that bitch… piece of work Kathy Jackson. She Ms Jackson did it! She Ms Jackson lives with a bloke who works in the same building as a bloke who done the investigation!!

    And I say that he’s had a cup of coffee and exchanged favours with him.

    So, your honour, that’s my case. Please go and arrest Ms Jackson, because SHE MS JACKSON DONE IT!!

  16. Mr.negative permalink
    October 15, 2012 8:02 pm

    Here you go Tom..http://www.independentaustralia.net/jacksonville/

    Make sure you read every episode if you are interested.

  17. Tom R permalink
    October 15, 2012 8:07 pm

    those mindless types who argued that Thomson had “no case to answer

    You do understand that, way back when you mouthing those accusations, he didn’t

    It is also yet to be determined if he does. I mean, Graig Thom(p)son might, but Craig?

  18. TB Queensland permalink
    October 15, 2012 8:08 pm

    Happy to be corrected if this isn’t the case… duly corrected 🙂

    But if I was Craig, I’d be shitting myself. Agree … absolutely! (If I was guilty!)

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

    But here’s a summary of Thomson’s “defence”!

    The problem I have with these posts, ToM … (and it’s for your benefit) … is that you just might end up with “egg on your face” … let the law run its course …

  19. TB Queensland permalink
    October 15, 2012 8:14 pm

    Innocent until proven guilty applies to both civil and criminal law

    However the onus of proff – by the prosecution is different …

    Civil – on the balance of probabilities

    Criminal – beyone reasonable doubt

    The onus of proving a case is on the prosecution NOT the defence …

  20. TB Queensland permalink
    October 15, 2012 8:15 pm

    proff = proof (my Norman heritage!)

  21. Mr.negative permalink
    October 15, 2012 8:18 pm

    I just hope everything comes out into the open, everyones involvement and the members finally clean out every bit and start with people who are for the members….In the URL posted earlier are names of people the union could or at least look at to represent them and clean out the rest.

  22. Tom R permalink
    October 15, 2012 8:32 pm

    Now that charges have been laid,

    From the Wixxy Office Block.

    For a start, we need to understand that these are claims, not “charges” as the propaganda pieces in The Australian are already calling them. There are no such things as civil charges.

    http://wixxyleaks.com/2012/10/15/remember-me/

    I learn something new every day (just not from the msm unfortunately)

    Either way, I’m pretty sure the papers will be ignoring such simplistic conventions, as his obvious guilt for these ‘charges’ is ‘carefully’ dissected. Also pretty sure that their new found love of ‘context’ will be abandoned rather rapidly.

  23. October 15, 2012 8:41 pm

    Still fighting the “good fight” ( ie; Thomson is innocent) agenda TomR , how cute….. 😉

  24. Tom R permalink
    October 15, 2012 8:43 pm

    I don’t think I have declared him innocent reb, I just haven’t declared him guilty.

  25. Tom R permalink
    October 15, 2012 8:46 pm

    But I am still laughing at the ineptitude of someone that spells ‘Craig’ wrong in what one would hope is a vetted document. 😆

  26. TB Queensland permalink
    October 15, 2012 9:26 pm

    M understanding is that a “state” body, WCA … brings charges … inividuals don’t … therefore, Craig Thomson, has been charged … emotionally or not!

  27. October 15, 2012 10:44 pm

    A Statement of Claim has been filed in the Federal Court of Australia. To ordinary citizens, this is mistakenly known as “bringing charges.”

  28. October 16, 2012 4:08 am

    T-R .. ” I learn something new every day
    (just not from the msm unfortunately) ”
    .
    Yeah, same here Tom R.
    .
    TB is correct reb, the `accused` doesn`t have to prove shit.
    It is up to the other side to `make` their case.

  29. el gordo permalink
    October 16, 2012 8:36 am

    ‘But if I was Craig, I’d be shitting myself. Agree … absolutely! (If I was guilty!)’

    Are pathological liars aware of their guilt?

  30. Tom R permalink
    October 16, 2012 8:46 am

    Are pathological liars aware of their guilt?

    You’d know better than the rest of us 😉

  31. October 16, 2012 9:03 am

    You’d know better than the rest of us
    Confirmed.!

  32. October 16, 2012 9:17 am

    Conspiracy Theory #123567: Ahh now that we’ve disposed of Slipper, it’s time to regurgitate the Thomson business!
    I think it will be the Federal Court that determines the matter. And time will tell if Thomson is guilty or not. Despite the NO Coalition’s rants about how much he’l have to pay and if he goes bankrupt then he can’t sit in parliament, and if, if, if.
    What surprises me is that people are still listening to all this cant!

  33. October 16, 2012 9:22 am

    “TB is correct reb, the `accused` doesn`t have to prove shit.”

    Oh noes, does this mean youse are all right and I’m the one who’s wrong…..??

  34. Ol' Sancty permalink
    October 16, 2012 9:36 am

    The Fair Work Act has provisions where the onus is reversed in the case of an “adverse action”. I’m not sure if this is an adverse action, but if it is, then the onus reverts back to the Respondent, in this case, Craig Thomson.

    It is one of the more controversial aspects of the Fair Work Act and is designed to place the onus on employers sacking workers and Unions engaging in industrial action to justify their actions. More than that I don’t know and I can’t draw a link between Thomson’s stuff and this “adverse action” stuff but the point is that the burden of proof insofar as the Fair Work legislation is concerned is not as simple as the traditional Plaintiff/Defendant stuff.

  35. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    October 16, 2012 10:00 am

    At every step the ALP fan club have been shown to be wrong about Thomson. They really hate being reminded of this though.

    First is was “speculation”. Then “a media beat up”, or “there’s nothing in it”. Then we were told to “withhold judgement until FWA had completed their investigation”.

    When FWA found almost 200 times against Thomson, the fan club attacked FWA, a creation of this government!!

    The findings were “wring”. The investigation was “tainted”.

    SDP Lawler “shared an office with the investigator”. They did “favours for each other”.

    At every step, the ALP fan club has been flat out to silence/ban anyone who proposed that Thomson “has a case to answer”.

    The people who run those sites continue to demonstrate their blinkered ignorance.

    Thomson “has a case to answer”, he’s a sleaze and regardless of the outcome of this case, he has no place in the parliament.

  36. October 16, 2012 10:13 am

    “the burden of proof insofar as the Fair Work legislation is concerned is not as simple as the traditional Plaintiff/Defendant stuff.”

    That is my understanding also Snacty….

    In a civil case, if the plaintiff has evidence of wrongdoing such as credit card statements, then the onus is on the defendant to prove that they are innocent.

    It’s different from the “beyond reasonable doubt” measure that would typically be required in a criminal case.

  37. Ol' Sancty permalink
    October 16, 2012 10:29 am

    Not quite, Reb, but certainly not as simple as TB said above.

    With Fair Work Act, throw out all traditional proof standards.

    Civil – the Plaintiff needs to prove on the balance of probabilities. In practice that will mean that where you have credit card statements like in Thomson, he’d probably want to have a good explanation for them. But that’s about creating doubt. I suspect that that is what applies in this case.

    Criminal – the Plaintiff needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt all aspects of the matter. So if Thomson turned around and said those credit card statements are wrong because I was in Perth, it falls again to the Crown to prove otherwise, providing there is an evidentiary basis for what Thomson says. This DOES NOT apply in this case.

    FWA – if proceedings are brought by FWA in relation to “adverse acts” the onus of proving the justification for those adverse acts falls to the Defendant (Respondent). It is known as a “reverse onus of proof” and it’s on the balance of probabilities. Now as far as I can tell, an adverse act is the dismissal of an employee or an act of industrial action. FWA brings the claim to the Federal Court (or Federal Magistrates Court) and it is up to the Respondent to prove on the balance of probabilities that the adverse act was justified under the Fair Work Act. I don’t have time to properly research it but I DON’T believe this applies in this case. That is, I don’t believe Thomson has to prove he didn’t spend on hookers or that such spending wasn’t justified. It is of course useful to his case if he can.

    I’m just saying that the traditional ideas (plural) of burden of proof don’t necessarily apply in relation to matters involving Fair Work Australia. It isn’t as simple as criminal vs civil.

  38. October 16, 2012 10:34 am

    Thanks Snacty…..! 🙂

  39. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 11:22 am

    I guess without knowing the FWA charges, we’re all gussing …

    PROTECTION AGAINST ADVERSE ACTIONS
    UNDER THE FAIR WORK ACT: A BROAD APPLICATION

    The General Protection provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FWA”) protect workplace rights and freedom of association as well as providing protection from workplace discrimination.

    General protections

    Section 340(1) of the FWA precludes any person from taking “adverse action” against another person in relation to a workplace right. This includes action against a person who has elected to exercise of not exercise a workplace right, or action to prevent a person from exercising a workplace right.

    The definition of “adverse action” under the FWA is deliberately broad. It encompasses action taken against employees, independent contractors (and their employees), prospective employees and employers.

    What is an “adverse action”?

    Pursuant to s 342 of the FWA, the following are considered “adverse actions” when taken by an employer against an employee:

    (a) Dismissing an employee;

    (b) Injuring an employee in their employment;

    (c) Altering the position of an employee to the employee’s prejudice;

    (d) Discriminating between an employee and other employees of the employer; or

    (e) Threatening or organising to take such action as listed above.

    A person will be in breach of the FWA even if the adverse action is not actually carried out. The provisions will apply even if the person threatens or makes arrangements to take any of the prohibited actions.

    A reverse onus of proof

    The adverse action/workplace rights protections contain a reverse onus of proof, meaning it will be up to the employers to prove they did not take the adverse action because of the alleged employee’s workplace right.

    The FWA brought substantial and significant changes in this area. The protections have been expanded and the right to seek an injunction is available even before an adverse action is taken.

    As such the law in this area is sometimes unclear, and it is important for both employers and employees to have appropriate legal advice. If you are interested in more information on workplace rights or adverse action please contact us. The content of this article is not to be taken as legal advice.

  40. Ol' Sancty permalink
    October 16, 2012 11:32 am

    Here’s the Statement of Claim. It’s 194 pages. Good luck!!

    http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/files/fwavthomsonstatementofclaim.pdf

  41. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 11:38 am

    After you, James!!!!! 😉

    Still the Titles in the Index give an idea of the track they are taking – misappropriation of USU funds and working conditions applicable to his position(s) …

    With the Victorian and NSW police gearing for charges (of fraud – I believe) … I wouldn’t want to defend his actions … I feel for his family though …

  42. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 11:39 am

    CORRECTION

    misappropriation of USU funds

    misappropriation of HSU funds

  43. October 16, 2012 12:07 pm

    This article outlines some of the implications…

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/thomson-labor-and-the-race-against-time-20121016-27nsf.html

  44. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 12:37 pm

    The AWB … interesting … the article is dated June but I don’t recall anything about this little; “bribe” …

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/top-job-offered-to-end-probe-20120606-1zwrh.html

  45. October 16, 2012 12:57 pm

    Here’s the Statement of Claim

    It would appear none here were astute enough to pick up the full Statement of Claim at 10:44 last night.

    https://thedailytrash.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/craig-thomson-guilty-as-charged/#comment-10172

  46. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 1:14 pm

    Yer a bit late SoC … James posted it almost an hour and ahalf ago … did you mean “none of us” (to include yourself …? just sayin’ )

  47. Ol' Sancty permalink
    October 16, 2012 1:19 pm

    I’ll start by apologising for my absence over the weekend and last night. Thought I might spend some time with my family rather than continue to brawl over the meaning and spelling of “misogyny”. Then I’ll apologise for not clicking contributors’ names when they are in red.

    Beyond that, given there is no reason to imagine that Thomson might actually resign his seat, this latest development really means nothing to Parliamentary numbers. The matter will be strung out such that bankruptcy won’t occur before the next election due late next year.

    I actually suspect that the election will be held early next year before Swan has to deliver the 2012 surplus. Because there will be no legitimate 2012 surplus, that much is already clear.

    What it does do though is add to the narrative about patterns of behaviour in the Trade Union movement. The AWU story is the main game as far as election tipping points are concerned and Julia Gillard is in deep deep trouble here. Maybe that also can be strung out until next year but I doubt it. The Fairfax papers are sensing that if they are to retain a modicum of credibility they need to start reporting the issue and that spells big trouble for Labor.

    The scalps will include Gillard, Shorten, Roxon to start with and the end point will be the disassociation of the ALP from the Trade Union movement. And that will be a good thing.

  48. el gordo permalink
    October 16, 2012 1:44 pm

    I’m not happy with the absence of jaws around the office. Was he pushed or did he walk?

  49. October 16, 2012 2:05 pm

    I put Jaws into moderation mode for a few hours after he was getting on my goat. I think it was Monday or the Monday before that.

  50. Ol' Sancty permalink
    October 16, 2012 2:11 pm

    Fck one goat……

  51. October 16, 2012 2:13 pm

    ” after he was getting on my goat. ”
    .
    I really hope your goat is alright.

  52. el gordo permalink
    October 16, 2012 2:17 pm

    So you broke up the fab four?

  53. October 16, 2012 2:23 pm

    You seemed quite happy chirping away in your CO2 room the other day when I looked in on you. You have gathered a nice collection of nonsense, by the way.

  54. el gordo permalink
    October 16, 2012 2:36 pm

    ‘…a nice collection of nonsense, by the way.’

    It may look like folly to you, but obviously it means more to me.

  55. Ol' Sancty permalink
    October 16, 2012 2:37 pm

    Who are the Fab Four?

  56. October 16, 2012 2:38 pm

    Yer a bit late SoC senile TB Queensland.

    October 15, 2012 10:44 pm is almost 13 hours before October 16, 2012 11:32 am

    just sayin’

  57. el gordo permalink
    October 16, 2012 2:45 pm

    ‘Who are the Fab Four?’

    Reb, TB, toilet and Jaws.

  58. Tom R permalink
    October 16, 2012 2:47 pm

    October 15, 2012 10:44 pm is almost 13 hours before October 16, 2012 11:32 am

    But is it before October 15, 2012 7:54 pm ❓

    just sayin’ 😉

  59. October 16, 2012 2:53 pm

    Touché Tom R.
    You were indeed almost 3 hours earlier.

    TB Queensland can take me to his Dementia Specialist.

  60. Tom R permalink
    October 16, 2012 3:06 pm

    TB Queensland can take me to his Dementia Specialist.

    I’ll already be there 😉

  61. October 16, 2012 3:11 pm

    Yeah TB, I never thought that the Howard regime was clear of the AWB corruption, this doesn`t surprise me. Nice find.

  62. Tom R permalink
    October 16, 2012 3:16 pm

    MORE than half the allegations against former Labor MP Craig Thomson could be thrown out on the grounds that their statute of limitations has been exceeded, Fair Work Australia concedes.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/allegations-against-thomson-could-be-thrown-out-20121016-27o84.html#ixzz29Qr09pVS

    😆

    But what about Graig? 😯

  63. el gordo permalink
    October 16, 2012 3:17 pm

    Uh oh…there is a catch.

    ‘MORE than half the allegations against former Labor MP Craig Thomson could be thrown out on the grounds that their statute of limitations has been exceeded, Fair Work Australia concedes.’

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/allegations-against-thomson-could-be-thrown-out-20121016-27o84.html#ixzz29QrP8RyR

  64. el gordo permalink
    October 16, 2012 3:18 pm

    Beat me by a minute.

  65. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    October 16, 2012 3:28 pm

    So the delay of this case, which was mainly supervised by Tim Lee (former ALP ministerial advisor, former union official and now ALP appointee as a FWA Commissioner), has paid dividends if much of it is thrown out for technical time related reasons.

    Now who will the ALP barrackers blame for that?

  66. October 16, 2012 3:43 pm

    THE WHOLE THING STINKS!

  67. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 3:45 pm

    … thrown out on the grounds that their statute of limitations has been exceeded

    I recall discussing this point weeks ago …

    ==================================

    Who are the Fab Four

    Only one Fab Four I know of …

  68. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 3:46 pm

    THE WHOLE THING STINKS!

    Thomson?

    egg?

    The Fab Four?

    All of the above …

  69. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 3:48 pm

    Then I’ll apologise for not clicking contributors’ names when they are in red.

    Y’know that’s something ToSY would do, isn’t it … 🙄

  70. October 16, 2012 4:00 pm

    Then I’ll apologise for not clicking contributors’ names when they are in red.

    Don’t Fear the …… 😯

  71. Ol' Sancty permalink
    October 16, 2012 4:02 pm

    I don’t get it…..

  72. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 4:39 pm

    Don’t worry, James … be happy …

  73. October 16, 2012 4:39 pm

    Seems Like your in the same boat as me sancty, everyones name is in black on this theme, Link or No-Link in their name, must be a theme verses browser bug.

  74. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 4:59 pm

    Simply “access” to a WordPress website for creating, editing, correcting thread headers … (yours or someone who gives you access to theirs) … I wrote a few articles for Blogocracy and had access to that site and a red tag … you’ll notice too that the Blogmeister has a red asterisk … he’s speshul …

  75. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 5:00 pm

    Or did I misunderstand, 730, all your name tags come up black?

  76. October 16, 2012 5:07 pm

    Yes TB, on this theme everyones name is black, and reb`s * is black too. (Permalink and date is grey)

  77. October 16, 2012 5:51 pm

    TB Queensland.

    What makes your name appear Red rather than Black?

    Have you noticed the Website field in the form where you write you posts? If you put something in there, your name will be Red, rather than Black. If you put a valid address in there, anyone clicking on it will be taken to that address.

    730reportland takes you to http://qandaland.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/organ-grinders-monkey/

    Tom R’s moniker on his most recent post takes you to http://www.periodicvideos.com/#

    Anyone can play!

    730reportland – the problem is yours. I can see Red and Black monikers.

  78. el gordo permalink
    October 16, 2012 6:29 pm

    On a completely different matter….

    ‘Speaking to reporters in New Delhi, Ms Gillard said that Mr Abbott ‘‘doesn’t have the guts’’ to bring up issues he says are important.’

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/pm-accuses-abbott-of-asylum-cowardice-20121016-27o1g.html#ixzz29RcSRmQK

    Its the ‘tow-back’ thingy and joolya is out of line. The Indonesians see the monk as the new Australian leader and they treat him with respect.

    Quietly they are saying we’ll tow the boats back for a pretty penny or two.

  79. October 16, 2012 6:32 pm

    “The Indonesians see the monk as the new Australian leader and they treat him with respect.”

    I can’t find the words to express my amazement.

  80. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 6:48 pm

    Have you noticed the Website field in the form where you write you posts?

    SoC – did you read my post? I don’t have a website … nothing shows in my posts … I don’t have a website …

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

    I can’t find the words to express my amazement.

    I can …

    Fuckwit™!

  81. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 6:52 pm

    So if we are missing a “member” … sreb, Ser T and me must be the Three Amigos!

    Yeah sreb’s in the middle …. but only ’cause he looks older … 😆

  82. October 16, 2012 7:08 pm

    I’d be the little one on the left…

    I’ve already nominated Dudley Moore to play me in the movie of my life that will never be made…

  83. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 7:13 pm

    Dudley’s DEAD! You’ll have to play withyourself!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Moore

  84. October 16, 2012 7:22 pm

    I guess it’ll have to be Oliver Reed in that case then..

  85. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 7:35 pm

    Oliver’s pickled and mould’rin’ too … FMD .. how old are you ! 😯

  86. October 16, 2012 8:13 pm

    TB Queensland – did you read my post?

    You don’t need to have a website! You can put anything you like, or a link to any website in that field.

    Check out the link on my moniker from this post.

  87. October 16, 2012 8:23 pm

    I think I like SoC…. 😉

  88. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 8:53 pm

    Thanks … SoC … what does … Diagnose Connection Problems, mean? 😯

  89. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    October 16, 2012 9:16 pm

    Remember when it was “trolling” to say “Thomson has a case to answer”?

    It seems that the Authority (FWA) specifically established by the ALP to deal with these matters is full of “trolls”!!

    Although since Thomson is having to “answer a case”… I suppose there will be a range of retractions posted soon.

  90. TB Queensland permalink
    October 16, 2012 9:19 pm

    I suppose there will be a range of retractions posted soon.

    Where? Not on this blog …

  91. Ol' Sancty permalink
    October 16, 2012 10:12 pm

    I think I’ve seen SoC before.

  92. October 16, 2012 10:26 pm

    😯

  93. public toilet permalink
    October 17, 2012 1:47 am

    😯

  94. el gordo permalink
    October 17, 2012 8:03 am

    ‘The financial penalties are the most immediate potential political ramification for the minority government, because if Mr Thomson was bankrupted he would be disqualified from sitting in Parliament. Being found at fault in a civil case does not preclude an MP from serving.

    ‘But Mr Thomson said he was confident ”this civil action has no legs at all” and bankruptcy was not something he had contemplated.’

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/case-based-on-politics-thomson-lawyer-says-20121016-27p4v.html#ixzz29UwdnF8D

  95. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    October 17, 2012 11:27 am

    Timing of all this is bad for the government. .

    * Thomson’s trial and all the details will get plenty of media space when the preferred narrative of the government will be the newest version of ‘working families’.

    * The Slipper saga and the 17 or 19 lawyers who spent $700k without winning will be fresh in the minds of the electorate.

    * Swan’s economic incompetence will be again on display.

    * Gillard’s fundamental inclination towards concealment, rather than transparency, will be scrutinised, because there will be plenty more from her ‘young & naive’ period as a mid 30s professional woman.

  96. Teapot of Boltsville permalink
    November 7, 2012 8:30 pm

    Does anyone actually believe Gillard can be trusted?

  97. February 6, 2013 6:52 pm

    You can tell just by looking at the guy that he’s a slimy fuckball, Guilty or not, he deserves everything he gets.

  98. TB Queensland permalink
    February 6, 2013 7:00 pm

    And juror of the year is ….

  99. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    February 6, 2013 7:47 pm

    Spot on thenightwas.

  100. el gordo permalink
    February 6, 2013 7:50 pm

    In his defence, Craig is not a well man.

  101. TB Queensland permalink
    February 6, 2013 8:01 pm

    I see we have two contenders for juror of the year … and it looks very close … 🙂

  102. February 6, 2013 9:01 pm

    Meanwhile, in other circles, the debate has taken an entirely new twist with some suggesting that the Police and FWA have a case to answer, but Thomson doesn’t..

  103. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    February 6, 2013 9:38 pm

    FWA Vice President Lawler has a case to answer!

    He “shared and office” with Investigator Nassios! AND they did favours for each other!!

  104. Truly Evil Walrus @ Palm Bitch permalink
    February 6, 2013 10:05 pm

    Wait a minute you idiots

    The point is that there is a criminal genius out there sneaking into people’s hotel rooms calling escort agencies on the hotel landline , having a Cigarette and watching “Julia fucks Oz” while the customer is in the friggin shower eating ice cream .

  105. 2DT Shock Jock permalink
    February 7, 2013 10:07 am

    “Meanwhile, in other circles, the debate has taken an entirely new twist…….”

    I just perused a couple of “other circles” and I have to say some of the language and phrase-ology used made my hair stand on end.

    And some of you Lefties think I go over the Top.

    I am but a L Plater compared to a few like the charming Jaycee who tries to shock “Splatterbottom Shakespeare Style” but can barely string a sentence together let alone a lucid argument.

    I gotta pick up my act a bit.

  106. el gordo permalink
    February 7, 2013 10:26 am

    JC hasn’t a deep intellect and leans towards god bothering. I told him the true story of Noah;s Ark and since then he’s been blaspheming.

  107. 2DT Shock Jock permalink
    February 7, 2013 10:45 am

    Yes I note that every dissenting comment in those parts is met with the tiresome “troll” label.

    A word barely used around here.

    In fact I cant recall the last time.

  108. TB Queensland permalink
    February 7, 2013 10:54 am

    Troll …

  109. el gordo permalink
    February 7, 2013 11:42 am

    ha ha

Go on say something, you'll feel better...

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: